### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE A T ME MP H IS Febr uary 24, 201 0 S es sio n DUANE MCCRORY

v. AN THON Y T RIBB LE andCYNTH IA TRIBBLE A p p ea l f ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. C T - 004082- 05 K ay S. R obi l i o, Judge

N o. W 2009- 00792- C O A - R 3- C V - F i l ed A pri l 22, 2010

T hi s i s a pre m i s es l i abi l i t y cas e. T he pl ai nt i ff w or ker al l egedl y i nj ur ed hi s knee w hi l e i n t he defe ndant s ’ hom e. T he pl ai nt i ff vi s i t ed a doct or t he next day , and ul t i m at el yhad s ur ger yon t he knee t he nextm ont h. Subse quent l y , t he pl ai nt i ff s ued the def endant s , al l egi ng pr emi s es liab ili ty . A ju rytrial w a s h e ld . A f ter th e tes tim o n yc o n c lu d e d , the trial c o u rt d e c lin e d to inclu d e a jury instruction req u ested b ythe p lai n ti ff

. D u ri n g clos ing arg u m en ts, the p lai n ti ff ’s at t or neys t ar t ed t o r ead f r om a depos i t i on t hathad notbeen e nt er ed i nt o evi dence ; t he tr i al cour ts us t ai ned a t i m el yobj ect i on. A l s o dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent , t he cl os i ng r emar ks of t he d ef en d an t’ s att o rne yalerted the p lai n ti ff ’s att o rne yto the fa ct that a p arti cu lar m ed ical reco rd w as nota partof t he evi dence s ubm i t t ed t o t he j ur y . W hi l e the j ur y w as d eli b era t i ng, t he pl ai nt i ff s ought t o r eopen pr oof t o admi t i nt o evi dence t he om i t t ed medi cal r ecor d; t he t r i al cour tdecl i ned t o reo p en the pr oof. T he j ur yr etur ned a ve r di ctfort he def endant s . T he p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o ra n e w t r i a l , wh i c h wa s d e n i e d

. T h e p l a i n t i f f n o w a p p e a l s . We a f f i r m. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C i rcui t C ourt A f

f i rm ed H OLL Y M. K IR BY , J. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch D AV I D R. F ARMER , J

. , and J. S TEV EN S TAFFORD , J

. , j oi ned. T h o m as D

. Y ea g li n , M em p h is, T en n esse e, fo r t h e P lai n ti ff /A p p ell an t, D u an e M cC rory N ich o las J. O w e n s, Jr., M e m p h is, T e n n e ss e e , f o r th e D e f

e n d a n t/A p p e llee s, A n th o n yT rib b le a n d C yn th ia T rib b leThe parties’ testim ony differs on whe ther Mr. Tribble w ent into th e a t t i c with Mr. McCrory or rem ained 1 standin gon

the stairway

lookinginto the attic while Mr. McCrory dem onstrated

ho w to ch ang e the filter. The p arti es ’ te st imony

d if fe rs o n whe th er

Mr

. Mc C ro ry

stum bl ed wh il e w al kin gfro m

the s ta irw ay

o r whi le 2 r e turni ng t o the st a i rway. -2- OP I NI ON F AC T S AN D P ROCEEDI NGS B E L OW A tal l t i m es per t i nent , Pl ai nt i ff/A ppel l antD uane M cC r or y( “M r . M cC r or y ”) w as a hea t i ng and ai r con dit i on i ng t echn i ci an em ploy ed by a heati ng and coo l i ng com p a n y in M em ph i s, T ennes s ee. O n A ugus t5, 2004, he w entt o the hom e of D efe ndant/ A ppel l ees A nt hony T r i bbl e ( “M r . T r i bbl e”) and C ynt hi a Tri bbl e ( col l ect i vel y“the Tri bbl es ”) i n r es pons e t o an ai rcondi t i oni ng s er vi ce c al l. T he Tri bbl es had pur chas ed the home appr oxi m at el yt en m ont hs ear l i er , i n O ct ober2003. T o p e rf o rm th e re q u ire d s e rv ice w o rk , M r. M c C ro ryo n lyn e e d e d a c c e ss to th e a ir co n d it ion ing u n it ou tsi d e the T ri b b les’ ho m e. A t som e p o int, M r. T ri b b le ask ed M r. M cC r or yt o s how hi m how t o change t he fi l t er for t he ai r condi t i oni ng uni t
. T hi s r equi r ed M r . M cC r or yt o go up a fol di ng s t ai r w ayi nt o t he att i c i n t he Tri bbl es ’ hom e. 1 T he fl oor i ng i n t he Tri bbl es ’ at t i c w as com p ri sed o f w ooden boar ds t hatw er e notnai l ed dow n. I n t he att i c, t he fi l t erfort he ai rcondi t i oni ng uni tw as appr oxi m at el ys i x t o ei ghtfee t aw ayfr om t he s t ai r w ay entr ance . A s M r . M cC r or y w al ked ac r os s t he att i c t o w her e the fi l t er w as lo ca ted to d em o n str ate h o w to ch an g e it , o n e o f th e f loo r bo ard s flipp ed u p , ca u sing M r. M cC r or yt o l os e hi s bal ance and stum bl e. A t t hi s t i m e, M r . M cC r or y s ay s t hathe tw i s t ed 2 hi s knee and sus t ai ned an i nj ur y . M r . M cC r or y di d nott el l M r . T r i bbl e thathe w as i nj ur ed; he w ent back d ow n the at t i c st ai rw ay , com plet ed the ser vice cal l , an d lef tt he T ri bb l es’ r es i dence

. T hat ni gh t , t he tw i st ed k nee ca used M r. M cC rorysi gn i fi cant pai n. T he nex t day , on A ug ust 6, 2004, M r . M cC r or y vi s i t ed t he D es ot o Fam i l yM edi cal C l i ni c t o have hi s knee e xami ned. H e w as re fe rred to an o rt h o p ae d ic su rge o n , Jam es V arn er, M

. D

. (“D r. V arn er” ). T w o w eeks l at er , on A ugus t20, 2004, M r . M cC r or ys aw D r . V arner . D r . V arner r ecomm ended s ur g ery to a ddr es s M r . M cC r or y ’ s knee i nj ur y . D r . V arnerper for m ed t he rec o m m en d ed su rge ryat the en d o f S ep tem b er 2 0 0 4

. F o r t h e n ex t tw o m o n ths, M r. M cC rory had phy s i cal t her apy . A ft er m i s s i ng four m ont hs of w or k, M r . M cC r or yr etur ned t o hi s j ob i n a l i m i t ed ca paci t yi n D ece m ber2004.The appe llate reco rd d oes not in clude a trans cript o f Mr. Tribble’s dep osition. 3 -3- O n A ugus t1, 2 005, M r . M cC r or yfi l ed the i ns t antl aw s ui tagai ns tt he Tri bbl es . I n t he compl ai nt , he al l eged thatt he Tri bbl es w er e aw ar e thatt he att i c fl oorboar ds w er e uns ecur ed, and t hat t his w as a dan gerous con dit i on . H e soug ht $100 , 00 0 in dam ages. In t he T ri bb l es’ ans w er , t heydeni ed the al l egat i ons . D i s coveryens ued. A s p a rt o f

th e d isc o v e ry , M r. T rib b le w a s d e p o se d

. In h is d e p o sitio n tes tim o n y , M r. T rib b le al l egedl yadmi t t ed that , pr i ort o t he i nci dent , he w as aw ar e thatt he att i c fl oorboar d on w hi ch M r . M cC r or ys tum bl ed w as l oos e. A t r ans cr i pt of M r . T r i bbl e’ s depos i t i on w as fi l ed i n t he trial c o u rt. 3 T he att or neyfort he Tri bbl es had di s coveryr eques t s s er ved on M r. M cC r or y ’ s m edi cal s er vi ce pr ovi der s , i ncl udi ng t he D es ot o Fam i ly M ed ical C ent er . I n i t s r es pons e t o t he di s coveryr eques t , t he D es ot o Fam i l yM edi cal C ent e rd i d n o ti n c l u d e anyr ecor d document i ng M r . M cC r or y ’ s vi s i ton t he dayi m m edi at el yaft ert he ac ci dent , A ugus t6, 2004. A ft err ece i vi ng t he m edi cal r ecor ds pr oduced unders ubpoena, t he att or neyfort he Tri bbl es pr ovi ded copi es of t hem t o M r . M cC r or y ’ s at t or neyi n A ugus t2008. U l t i m at el y , t he part i es s t i pul at ed t o M r . M cCr o ry ’ s r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a rymedi cal expens es , t ot al i ng $14, 867. 39, as w el l as M r . M cC r or y ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds

. N ei t hers t i pul at i on m ent i oned M r . M cC rory ’s A u g u st 6, 20 0 4 v isi t t o the D eso to F am il yM ed ical C en ter. In F eb rua ry2 0 0 9 , the tri al co u rtco n d u cted a jurytr ial o v er tw o d ay s. A m o n g o thers, th e jury h e a rd tes tim o n yf

ro m M r. M c C ro rya n d M r. T rib b le. F o u r e x h ib its w e re e n ter e d in to evidence, i ncludi ng t he st i pu l at ed m edical recor ds and exp enses. I n hi s t es t i m ony , M r . M cC r or y cl ai m ed t hat he i nj ur ed hi s knee i n t he Tri bbl es ’ at t i c w hen a fl oorboar d fl i pped up and c aus ed hi m to stum b le. T he nextday , he s ai d, he vi s i t ed the D es ot o Fam i l yM edi cal C ent er t o have t he knee exami ned. U l t i m at el y , he had s ur geryon t he k n e e , h e s a i d , a n d m i s s e d s e v e r a l m o n t h s o f w o r k r e c o v e r i n g f

r o m t h e s u r g e r y. M r . T r i bbl e t es t i fi ed i n hi s ow n defe ns e. I n hi s t es t i m ony , M r . T r i bbl e cl ai m ed thathe w as not aw ar e of anyl oos e fl oorboar ds i n t he att i c pr i ort o M r . M cC r or y ’ s i nj ur y . H e admi t t ed that t he fl oorboar ds w er e notnai l ed dow n, butnevert hel es s bel i eved thatt he boar ds w ere s ecur e bec aus e t hey w er e fl us h and w er e hel d dow n byt he w ei ghtof t he w at erheat eri n t he a tti c . A lth o u g h M r. T rib b le w a s c ro ss -e x a m in e d o n th is p o in t, M r. M c C ro ry ’s a tto rn e yd id n o t u til ize h is a lleg e d lyin c o n sis ten t d e p o sitio n tes tim o n y , in w h ich M r. T rib b le p u rp o rte d ly conce ded thathe w as aw ar e of a l oos e fl oorboar d i n hi s at t i c.The secon d p aragraph in T.P. I . 9 .06 states: 4 When the co ntractor has com plete c ontrol of the premises where the ac cident occurred and the [ o wn e r ][ o c c u p a n t ] r e t a i ns n o c on tr ol of

th atpartof

th e pr op e rty [

except to th e ex te nt of de te rm in ing if th e w or k is be ing pe rf

or m ed ac co rd

ing to th e co nt

ra ct ] , th e [o w n e r ][ o c c u p a n t ] o w e s n o d u ty of care to the em ploy ees o f the [ contra ctor] [

subco ntracto r]

. Mr. McC rory ’s attorn ey

did not s eek

to hav e this secon d p aragraph include d in the jury instruc tions.

-4- A t t he concl us i on of t he t es t i m ony and pr i or t o cl os i ng ar gum ent s , the t r i al cour tconduct ed a heari ng on t he jur yi nst ruct i on s. M r. M c C ror y ’s at t orneysoug ht t o incl ud e t he fir st paragraph o f T enn essee Patt ern Jur yInstruct i on 9. 06 (“T.P. I. 9. 06 ”), w hich st at es:

W hen an [

o w n e r] [ o r] [ o c c u p a n t] of pr oper t yr emai ns i n contr ol of t he pr emi s es w her e w or k i s bei ng done, t he [ o w n e r] [ o r] [ o c c u p a n t] h a s a d u tyto us e or di narycar e i n m anagi ng t he pr oper t yt o avoi d expos i ng t he empl oy ees o f a c o n t r a c t o ro rs u b c o n t r a c t o rt o a n u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k o f h a r m. T

. P. I

. 9. 06. T he t r i al cour tdecl i ned t o do s o, appar ent l y on t he bas i s t hatT

. P. I

. 9. 06 w as not

4 appl i cabl e bec aus e M r . M cC r or yw as notper for m i ng w or k i n t he T r i bbl es ’ at t i c w hen he w as al l egedl yi nj ur ed. I ns t ead, t he tr i al cour topt ed t o us e I ns t ruct i ons 9. 01, 9. 02, and 9. 07 i n t he j ur ychar ge, s t at i ng:

O ne w ho ow ns, occu pies , or l eases propertyi s und er a dut yt o u se o rd in a ryc a re , w h ich is th e c a re th a t o rd in a rilyc a re f u l p e r s o n s w o u ld u se to avo i d i njur y t o t hem sel ves or o t hers u nd er t he sam e or si m i l ar ci rcum st ances. T her e i s n o d u t y t o g u a r a n t e e t h e s a f e t y o f t h o s e e n t e r i n g u p on t he pr oper t y . C ons i der al l t he s ur r oundi ng ci r cumst ance s i n deci di ng i f t he defe ndantus ed s uch ca r e. T o r e c o v e rf

o ra n i n j u r y c a u s e d b y a n u n s a f e c o n d i t i o n o f

t h e p r o p e r t y, t he pl ai nt i ff musts how t he def endan t either cr eat ed the uns afe condi t i on or k n e w o f it l o n g e n o u g h to h a v e c o rre c ted it o r g iv e n a d e q u a te w a rn in g o f it befor e pl ai nt i ff’ s i nj ur y , or t hat t he uns afe condi t i on exi s t ed l ong enough that t he d ef endantus i ng or di narycar e s houl d have di s cover ed and c or r ect ed or adequa t el yw ar ned of the uns afe condi t i on. A n unsafe cond i t i on i s a con dit i on w hich creat es an unreasonab l e ri sk o f h a rm . A n o w n e r o r o c c u p ier o f p ro p e rtyw h o m a in tain s a n in h e re n tly danger ous i ns t rum ent al i t yupon t he pr oper t ydoes notguar ant ee the s afe t yof ot her s , buti s r equi r ed t o us e due car e appr opr i at e t o t he haz ar ds ar i s i ng fr om-5-

t he d a n g e r o u s i n s t ru me n t a l i t y . Th e d u t y o f d u e c a r e c a n n o t b e a v o i d e d by d eleg ati n g the d u tyto a c o n tr ac tor o r sub co n tr ac tor. T h u s, the tria l c o u rt in s tru cted the ju rythat the T ri b b les w ere u n d er a d u tyto u se o rdin ary c a r e t o a v o i d i n

j u r i n g M r . M c C r o r y. A ft er the tr i al cou rtcharged t he jur y , t he p art i es’ at t orney s m ade thei r cl osi ng argum ents
. D ur i ng hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent , M r . M cC r or y ’ s at t or ney r emi nded t he j ur y t hat M r . T r i bbl e had t ol d t hem t hathe di d notknow t he fl oorboar ds w er e l oos e. H e then att empt ed t o r ead t o t he j ur y M r . T r i bbl e’ s depos i t i on t es t i m ony , i n w hi ch M r . T r i bbl e al l egedl y admi t t ed that he k n e w th e f

lo o r b o a rd s w e re lo o se . N o t su rp risin g ly , the T ri b b le s ’ a tto rn e yim m e d iate ly obj ect ed on t he grounds t hat t he deposi t i on t es t i m ony had notcome i nt o evi dence dur i ng t he tr i al

. T he tri al cou rt sust ai ned t he object i on , and M r. M cC ror y ’s at t orney con c lu d e d h is c l o s i n g a r g u m e n tw i t h o u tf u r t h e rr e f

e r r i n g t o M r . T r i b b l e ’ s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y. T he att or neyfort he Tri bbl es t hen made hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent
. H e fi r s tr emi nded the j ur yt hat M r . M cC r or y had cl ai m ed t hathe w as i nj ur ed i n t he fi r s tw eek of A ugus t2004 and had s een a p h y sici an the n ex t day

. T h e T ri b b les’ att o rne ythen p o inted o u t th at, d esp it e M r. M cC rory ’s a ss e rtio n , the m e d ica l re c o rd s a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e sh o w e d th a t M r. M c C ro ry ’s f irst v isit to a phy s i ci an occ ur r ed overt w o w eeks l at er , and thatt he medi cal expens es M r . M cC rory s o u g h td i d n o ti n c l u d e p a ym e n to f a n y e x p e n s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a n e a r l i e rv i s i t
. A p p a r e n t l y, u n ti l th e T ri b b les’ att o rne ym ad e the se statem en ts i n h is cl o sing arg u m en t, n e ith er M r. M cC r or ynorhi s couns el w er e aw ar e that the D eSot o Fam i l yM edi cal C ent err ecor ds pr oduced di d noti ncl ude the r ecor d of M r . M cC r or y ’ s i ni t i al vi s i ton A ugus t6, 2004. A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f

c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, th e ju ry re tired to d e lib e ra te. A s the ju ryb e g a n its del i ber at i ons , M r . M cC rory cal l ed the D eSot o Fam i l yM edi cal C ent ert o i nqui r e aboutt he m iss in g m e d ica l re c o rd s. H e w a s to ld th a t th e A u g u st 6 re c o rd s h a d b e e n in a d v e rte n tly over l ooked and t hat he coul d pi ck up a copyt he nextday

. M r . M cC r or y ’ s at t or neybr ought t hi s i nfor m at i on t o t he tr i al cour t ’ s at t ent i on and as ked t he t r i al cour tt o r eopen pr oof t o al l ow hi m t o admi ti nt o evi dence t he omi t t ed medi cal r ecor d. T he tr i al cour tdecl i ned t o do s o. A ft erdel i ber at i ng forappr oxi m at el yt w entym i nut es , t he j u ry retur ned and the for eper s on announce d t he ver di ct
. A ft er cons i der i ng t he proof , t he j ur y found t hatt he Tri bbl es ’ conduct w as nott he l egal caus e of M r . M cC r or y ’ s i nj ur y . O n February 9, 2009, t he tr i al cour tent er ed an o rdergrant i ng j ud gm ent i n fav or of t he T ri bb l es. Subse quent l y , t he Tri bbl es fi l ed a mot i on fordi s cr et i onarycos t s , and M r . M cC r or yfi l ed a m o ti o n fo r a n ew tr ial

. In h is m o ti o n fo r a n ew tr ial , M r. M cC roryarg u ed that the tri al co u rt e rre d b yre f

u sin g to re o p e n p ro o f

f o r a d m iss io n o f

th e o m itt e d m e d ica l re c o rd , ref u sin g to-6-

al l ow M r . M cC rory ’ s at t or neyt o r ead M r . T r i bbl e’ s depos i t i on t es t i m onyi n hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent , and dec l i ni ng t o i ncl ude T. P. I

. 9. 06 i n t he j ur y i ns t ruct i ons . T he m ot i on fora new t r i al w as deni ed and the Tri bbl es w er e aw ar ded d iscreti o narycos t s . M r . M cC r or ynow app eal s. I SS UE S ON A PPE AL AN D S T AN DA RD OF R EVIE W O n ap peal, M r. M cC ror yrai ses the fo l l ow i ng i ssues: 1) W hethert he tr i al cou rterr ed in r efusi ng t o ch arge t he jur yw i t h the fi rs t par agr aph of T. P. I

. 9. 06; 2 ) W h ethe r t h e tr ia l c o u rterred in su stai n ing the T ri b b les’ objecti o n to M r. M c C r o r y’ s r e a d i n g t o t h e j u r y a p o r t i o n o f M r . T r i b b l e ’ s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y; 3 ) W h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d in re f u sin g to a llo w M r. M c C ro ryto re o p e n h is p ro o f to p re se n t a c o p yo f

th e o m itt e d m e d ica l re p o rt; 4) W hethert he tr i al cour ter r ed i n deny ing M r . M cC r or y ’ s m ot i on fora new tr ial , co n side ri n g all o f th e f o reg o ing an d the o b v iou s fa ct t h at M r. M cC rory had notr ece i ved due j us t i ce a nd a fa irt r i al undert he above ques t i oned ci r cumst ance s w hi ch had oc curr ed onl ybym ist ak e and ce r t ai nl ynotby a n y o n e ’s in ten d e d c o n d u c t. O u r sta n d a rd o f

re v iew f o r th e tria l c o u r t’ s d e c isio n s p e rta in in g to th e ju ryc h a rg e is w e ll es t abl i s hed. W e r evi ew t he j ur ychar ge i n i t s ent i r etyand as a w hol e t o det er m i ne w hethert he t r i al j udge comm it ted re ver s i bl e err or . W e w i l l noti nval i dat e a char ge i f i t“fa i r l ydefi nes t he l egal i s s ues i nvol ved i n t he ca s e and doe s not m i s l ead the j ur y . ” Fur t her , i t i s noterr orfora tr i al cour tt o denya r eques t ed i ns t ruct i on i f i t s s ubs t ance has al r eady been i ncl uded i n ot herpor t i ons of t he c h a rg e . “W h e re th e c o u rt c o rre c tlyc h a rg e s th e law a p p lica b le to th e c a se , it i s n o t e r r o r t o d e n y a s p e c i a l r e q u e s t t h a t e mbo d i e s a t h e o r y o f a p a r t y i f t he cour tchar ges i n gene ral t er m s and w i t h cl earnes s s ound pr opos i t i ons of l aw w h ich w o u ld gui de t he j ur y i n r eac hi ng a corr ect deci s i on i n t he cas e. ” W e w il l no t rev erse a tri al co u rtu n less the f ail u re to g ive a req u ested ch arg e “ m o re p ro b a b lyth a n n o t” a f

f e c ted th e ju d g m e n t. Mil le r v . Cho o Cho o Pa r tne rs, L. P. , 73 S. W

. 3d 897, 908 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2001) ( ci t at i ons o m itted).-7-

T he r emai ni ng i s s ues r ai s ed on appea l ar e re vi ew ed underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. S e e T h a c k e r v . B a ll , N o . E 2 0 0 6 -0 1 8 7 6 -C O A -R 3 -C V , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 8 3 6 8 4 6 , at * 5 (T e n n . C t. A p p . J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 ), no per m . app. (“ T h e g ra n t o r d e n ial o f a n e w trial is d isc re tio n a ryw ith t he tr i al j udge, and ca nnotbe r el i ed on as gr ound for r ever s al unl es s an abus e of di s cr et i on i s s how n. ” ( ci t i ng E s s t

m an v. B oyd , 6 0 5 S .W .2 d 2 3 7 ( T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 7 9 ))); McG eehee v . D a v is , N o. M 2002- 03062- C O A

- R 3- C V , 2004 W L 66686, at *2 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. J an. 15, 2 0 0 4 ), no per m . app. ( “[I ] t i s w i t hi n t he t r i al j udge’ s di s cr et i on w hether t o r eopen t he pr oof forfur t herevi dence and t hatdeci s i on w i l l notbe di s turbed abs ent a s how i ng of i nj us t i ce or an abus e of di s cr et i on. ” ( ci t i ng Simps on v. Fr onti erCm t y. Cr edit U ni on , 810 S. W

. 2d 147, 1 4 9 (T en n . 1 9 9 1 ))) ; P erkins v. Sadler , 8 2 6 S

. W

. 2 d 4 3 9 , 4 4 2 (T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) (“In gener al , cont r ol overt he ar gum entof counse l i s l odged w i t h t he tr i al cour tw hi ch exe r ci s es a s ound j udi ci al di s cr et i on as t o w hat s hal l and s hal l not be per m i t t ed i n ar gum ent
. ” ( quot i ng J. A very B ryan , Inc. v. Hu bb ard , 2 2 5 S .W .2 d 2 8 2 , 2 8 7 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 4 9 )) ). A N A LY S IS M r . M cC r or y fi r s t ar gues t hat t he tr i al cour terr ed i n decl i ni ng t o i ncl ude T. P. I

. 9. 06 i n t he jurych arg e, all eg ed lyb ase d o n the tri a l c o u rt ’s erron eo u s im p ression that the e n ti re in stru c tio n w o u ld h a v e to b e g iv e n , an d th e se c o n d p a ra g ra p h w a s ina p p lica b le to th e f a c ts of t hi s cas e. M r . M cC r or y cont ends t hat , i n t he abs ence of T

. P. I

. 9. 06, t he j ur y w as not i ns t ruct ed as t o t he dutya l andow nerow es t o a w or keron t he pr emi s es . H e mai nt ai ns t hat T .P .I. 9 .0 6 c o n s is ts “ o f tw o p a ra g ra p h s th a t [ a re ] lite ra lly in d e p e n d e n t in th o u g h t a n d e f f e c t.” “W e r evi ew t he j ur ychar ge i n i t s ent i r etyand as a w hol e t o det er m i ne w hethert he tr i al j udge comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err or . ” Mil ler , 73 S. W

. 3d at908 ( ci t i ng O tis v. Cam bri dg e Mu t . Fire I ns. C o. , 8 5 0 S .W .2 d 4 3 9 , 4 4 6 (T e n n . 1 9 9 2 ); G ris so m v . Me tro . G o v 't o f N a sh v ille , 817 S .W .2 d 6 7 9 , 6 8 5 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 1 )). Ju ryin stru c tio n s “ d o n o t h a v e to b e p e rf e c t in everydet ai l

. ” G oo da le v. L an gen berg , 243 S. W

. 3d 575, 584 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2007) ( ci t i ng W i el gus v. D ove r I

ndus. , I nc. , 39 S. W

. 3d 124, 131 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2000) )

. “W e w i l l not i nval i dat e a c har ge i f i t‘ fai r l ydefi nes t he leg al issu es i nvol ved i n t he ca s e and doe s not m i s l ead the j ur y . ’ ” Mil

ler , 73 S. W

. 3d at908 ( ci t i ng O tis , 8 5 0 S .W .2 d a t 4 4 6 ; G r is s om , 817 S

. W

. 2 d at 68 5 ). H e re , the trial co u rt in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t th e T rib b les , as lan d o w n e rs, w e re u n d e r a d u ty t o us e or di narycar e t o avoi d i nj ur y t o t hos e ent er i ng t he pr oper t y . W hi l e the j ur ychar ge may n o t h a v e sp e c if

ied th a t M r. M c C ro ryw a s a w o rk e r, ju ry in stru c tio n s n e e d n o t “ b e p e rf e c t in everydet ai l

. ” G o o da le , 2 4 3 S. W

. 3 d a t5 8 4 ( ci t i ng W i e l gus , 39 S. W

. 3d at131)

. A ft er r evi ew i ng t he j ur y i ns t ruct i ons as a w hol e, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatt he i ns t ruct i ons m i s l ed t h e jury o r f

ai l ed t o “fa i r l ydefi ne[] t he l egal i s s ues i nvol ved. ” Mil ler , 73 S. W

. 3d at908R

ul e 32

. 01 p ro v id es in

p erti ne nt p art: 5 At the tria l o r up on th e he arin go f a m otio n or an inte rl oc ut or

y p ro ce edin g , any

p art or all of a depo sition, so far as admissible under the T ennes see Rules of E v idence applied as though the witnes s were then present and testify ing , m ay be used ag ainst any party who was present or rep resented at th e t a kin g of the depo sition o r who had reasona ble n otice thereof in acc ordan ce w ith any of the fo llowin gpro v isions:

. . . . (2) The depo sition of a party or of any one who at th e tim e of takingthe depo sition was an officer, director, or m anag ingag ent, or a person des ignated unde r R

ule 3 0.0 2(6) o r 31. 01 to testify

on b e ha lf of a pu

blic o r priv ate co rporation , p artnership or associatio n, g ov ernm ental a g ency

or indiv idual proprieto rship whic h is a party may be used by

an adv erse p arty

for any purpose. T ENN . R. C IV . P. 32. 01. -8- ( ci t i ng O tis , 8 5 0 S .W .2 d a t 4 4 6 ; G r is s om , 817 S. W

. 2d at 685)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd no er r or i n the t ri al cou rt ’s decis i on no tt o incl ud e T

. P

. I. 9. 06 i n the j uryi nst ruct i on s. M r . M cC r or ynextar gues t hatt he t r i al cour t err ed by pr ohi bi t i ng hi s at t or neyfr om r eadi ng t he deposi t i on t es t i m onyof M r . T r i bbl e dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent
. H e cont ends t hatt he dep o s i t i o n t e s t i mon ys i g n i fi cant l ycontr adi ct ed M r . T r i bbl e’ s t r i al t es t i m ony , and thatt he t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on l eftt he j ur yw i t h a fa l s e i m pr es s i on of M r . T r i bbl e’ s cr edi bi l i t y . C i t i ng Thomps on v. Cle nde ning , 38 T enn. ( 1 H ead) 287 ( 1858) , M r . M cC r or y co n t ends t hat “mat t er s di s cover ed l at e i n t i m e can be excl uded i n t he Tri al J udge’ s di s cr et i on unl es s t hey i nvol ve a ver y s er i ous and m at er i al i s s ue of cr edi bi l i t y . ” M r . M cC r or y as s er t s tha t the sta tem e n ts in M r. T rib b le’ s d e p o sitio n w e re “ v e ry im p o rta n t” a n d “ to tallyc o n tra d icte d ” h is tes tim o n yo n th e w it n e s s s tan d . In su p p o rt o f h is a rg u m e n t, M r. M c C ro ryp o in ts to R u le 32. 01( 2) of t he Tennes s ee Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and i ns i s t s t hati t“cl ear l ypr ovi des t hat 5 anypar t y to a law sui tm ayus e the di s coverydepos i t i on of t he oppos i t i on par t yforany p u rp o s e a n d th e re is n o lim ita tio n w h a ts o e v e r a s to th a t w h o lly u n re s tr ic te d u s e .” H e re , itis u n d isp u ted th a t M r. T rib b le ’s d e p o sitio n w a s n o t en ter e d in to e v id e n c e a t trial. F urt her, i ti s und i sputed t hat M r. M cC ror y ’s at t orney did no t i m peach M r. T ri bb l e on cross exami nat i on w i t h t he por t i on of t he depos i t i on ati s s ue. R ul e 32. 01 of t he T ennes s ee R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e gi ves w i de l at i tude i n t he us e of the depos i t i on t es t i m onyof a pa r t y . I tdoes not , of cour s e, m andat e t hata tr i al cour tper m i tt he u se o f su c h d e p o sitio n tes tim o n ya t an ytim e f o r a n yre a so n , if th e tes tim o n yis in a d m iss ib le orot herw i s e i nappr opr i at e. R ul e 32. 01 i s s i m pl ynotper t i nen t t o t he i s s ue of w hethert he t r i al cour terr ed i n t hi s cas e by notper m i t t i ng M r . M cC r or y ’ s couns el t o r ead t o t he j ur y , aft er-9-

th e c lo se o f

p ro o f , p o rtio n s o f

th e d e p o sitio n tes tim o n yth a t h a d n o t b e e n a d m itt e d in to evi dence

. “I n gener al , t he contr ol overt he ar gum ent of couns el r es i des w i t h t he tr i al cour t , and the t r i al cour thas br oad di s cr et i on as t o w hat s hal l and s hal l not be per m i t t ed i n ar gum ent
. ” S m a rtt v . NH C He a lthc a r e

/ McMinn v il

le, LLC , N o. M 2007- 02026- R 3- C V , 2009 W L 482475, at * 1 9 (T e n n . C t. A p p . F e b . 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 ), per m . app. f i l ed A pr . 24, 2009 ( quot i ng D a v is v . H a ll , 920 S. W

. 2d 213, 217 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 1995) )

. T he appel l at e courtw i l l r ever s e the dec i s i ons of t he tr i al cour tas t o t he ar gum ent of couns el onl yi f i tfi nds a pal pabl e abus e of di s cr et i on. T e n n e ss e e c o u rts h a v e tra d iti o n a llya f f o rd e d c o u n se l w id e latit u d e in th e c o n ten t o f th e ir c lo s in g a rg u m e n t to th e ju ry. S ta te v . Br o wn , N o . W2 0 0 8

- 0 1 8 6 6

- C C A

- R 3

- C D , 2 0 1 0 WL 2 2 8 1 2 , a t * 6 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . J a n . 5 , 2 0 1 0 ), per m . app. f i l ed A pr . 14, 2010 ( ci t i ng State v. Zirk le , 910 S. W

. 2d 874, 888 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1995) )

. H ow ever , “the pol i cyof al l ow i ng l at i tude t o couns el

. . . does notm ean ther e ar e no l i m i t s on ar gum ent
. ” R u ss e ll v. S ta te , 532 S

. W

. 2 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 1 (T en n . 1 9 7 6 ). C lo sin g a rg u m e n t is a c ru c ial c o m p o n e n t o f a n y ju r y tri a l. B e c a u se th e ju ryis s w o rn to deci de the ca s e ac cor di ng t o t he evi dence , perhaps t he s i ngl e m os ti m por t antfea tur e of a ny cl os i ng ar gum enti s t he att or ney ’ s di s cus s i on of t he evi dence and hi s eff or t s t o per s uade the j ur or s t o vi ew t he evi dence i n t he m anner w hi ch he pr es ent s . For t hi s r eas on, as a rul e, t he at t or ney s ar e conf

i ned i n t hei r a rgum entt o t he fa ct s and evi dence i n t he r ecor d and any re a s o n a b le in f

e re n c e s th e re f

ro m . S ta te v . T

a te , N o . 0 2 C 0 1

- 9 6 0 5

- C R

- 0 0 1 6 4 , 1 9 9 7 WL 7 4 6 4 4 1 , a t * 1 0 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . D e c . 3 , 1 9 9 7 ), per m . app. deni ed O ct
. 5, 1998 ( ci t i ng R u ss e ll , 5 3 2 S .W .2 d a t 2 7 1 ); s ee 75 A M . J UR . 2 D Tri al§ 4 1 4 ( 2 0 1 0 ) ( “ C o m m e n t s o f a t t o r n e ys th a t ar e p ro sc rib e d in b o th c iv il an d c rim in a l c a s e s a r e . . . ref e re n c e s to m a tters n o t in ev iden ce . ”). In th e in sta n t ca se , M r. T rib b le’ s d e p o sitio n w a s n o t ad m itt e d in to e v id e n c e d u rin g th e trial, and the exc erpt M r . M cC r or y ’ s couns el s ought t o r ead dur i ng hi s cl os i ng ar gum entw as not ut i l i zed dur i ng t he t r i al

. U nder t hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on nott o per m i tM r . M cC r or y ’ s couns el t o rea d ex cerpt s fr om t he d e p o s i t i o n t o t h e j u r y. M r . M cC r or y n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y r e f u s i n g t o r e o p e n p r o o f for cons i der at i on of t he medi cal r ecor d s how i ng t hatM r . M cC r or y s ought m edi cal t r eatm entt he d a ya f ter th e in c id e n t. H e c o n ten d s th a t, i n g e n e ra l, th e trial c o u rt h a s in h e re n t au th o rityto d o so , an d is s p e c if

ica llya u th o riz e d u n d e r R u les 5 9 a n d 6 0 o f th e T e n n e ss e e R u les o f C iv ilRule s 59 and 60 of the T ennes see R ules o f C iv il Pro cedure add ress p rim arily

po st- trial motions and are n ot 6 pe rt in ent t o th e tr ia l c ourt ’s d ec is io n to d ec li ne to r eo pe n th e pr oo f. See, e. g., Harris v. Dominion Bk. of Midd le T enn . , 1 997 W L 273953, agt *5 (Tenn. C t. A pp. May 23 , 7 19 97 ) (p ro of re op en ed af

te r pl ai nt if

f cl os ed ca se in ch ie f, af

fi rmed on a pp ea l) ; Higgins v. Steide , 3 35 S.W. 2d 53 3, 5 40 ( Tenn. C t. App . 1 95 9) ( ab us e of d is cr et io n to r eop en

p ro of a ft er e v id en ce c lo se d but b ef

or e jury ch arg e)

. -10- Pr ocedur e. C i t i ng Simps on v. Fr onti erCm t y. Cr edit U ni on , 8 1 0 S

. W

. 2 d 1 4 7 (T en n . 1 9 9 1 ), 6 M r . M cC r or ycont ends t hatt he tr i al cour t s houl d r eopen pr oof w hen j us tr es ul t s ar e ats t ake. M r. M c C ro rya ss e rts th a t th e a b se n c e o f th e m e d ica l re c o rd c a u se d th e ju ryto in a c c u ra tely p e r c e i v e t h a th e wa s n o ta c r e d i b l e wi t n e s s a n d r e s u l t e d i n a v e r d i c tf o rt h e T r i b b l e s . He i ns i s t s t hat t he om i s s i on of t he re cor d fr om t he evi dence at t r i al “r es ul t ed fr om t he mi s t ake as m ade by t h e me d i c a l f a c i l i t yt o a b i d e b yt h e t e r ms o f t h e [ s ] u b p o e n a ” a n d “ was co m p o u n d ed b ythe fa ct th at [ M r. M cC rory ’s a tt o rne y ] d id n o t n o ti ce that the m ed ical reco rd in q u e s tio n w a s a b s e n t f ro m th e s ta c k o f

m e d ic a l r e c o rd s .” “Per m i t t i ng addi t i onal pr oof, aft era par t y has announce d t hat pr oof i s cl os ed, i s w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of t he t r i al cour t , and unl es s i tappea r s t hati t s act i on i n t hatr egar d has per m i t t ed i nj us t i ce, i t s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on w i l l notbe di s turbed on appe al

. ” Simps on v. Fr onti er Cm t y. Cr edit U ni on , 810 S. W

. 2d 147, 149 ( T enn. 1991) ( ci t i ng S ta te v . B e ll , 690 S. W

. 2d 8 7 9 ( T e n n . C r im . A p p . 1 9 8 5 )); acco rd McG eeh ee v. D a v is , No

. M 2 0 0 2

- 0 3 0 6 2

- CO A- R3

- CV , 2004 W L 66686, at*2 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. J an. 15, 2004)

. H ow ever , in this e xer ci s e of di s cr et i on, pr oof i s s el dom r eopene d i n a j ur y t r i al

. I ndeed, M r . M cC r or yci t es no T ennes s ee 7 cas e i n w hi ch t he t r i al cour t r eopene d pr oof af t ert h e j u r yh a d r e t i r e d t o d e l i b e r a t e , a n d we have f ound none. I n t hi s cas e, i ti s undi s put ed that t he T r i bbl es ’ at t or ney for w ar ded copi es of t he s ubpoenae d m edi cal r ecor ds t o M r . M cC r or y ’ s at t or ney near l y s i x m ont hs pr i or t o t r i al

. T her eaf t er , t he par t i es engage d i n l engt hy negot i at i ons conce r ni ng s t i pul at i ons as t o t he medi cal r ecor ds and m edi cal expens es . C l ear l y , couns el forM r . M cC r or yhad ampl e oppor tuni t yt o r evi ew t he m edical recor ds and dis cov er the om i ssi on pri or t o cl osi ng argum ents att ri al

. U nd er these circu m stan ce s, w e c an n o t con clud e tha t th e tr ial co u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n b yd ec li n ing M r. M cC r or y ’ s r eques tt o r eopen pr oof. Fi nal l y , M r . M cC r or yar gues t hat , i n l i ght of t he for egoi ng al l eged e r r or s , t he tr i al cour terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora new t r i al

. W e r evi ew t he tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o denya mot i on f o r a n e w tr ia l u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd

. See T h a c k e r v . B a ll , N o. E 2006- 0 1 8 7 6 -C O A -R 3 -C V , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 8 3 6 8 4 6 , a t * 5 (T e n n . C t. A p p . J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 ), no per m . app. ( ci t i ng E s s t

m an v. B oyd , 6 0 5 S. W

. 2d 237 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 1979) )

. H avi ng found no err or-11-

o n th e iss u e s ra ise d a b o v e b yM r. M c C ro ry , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g M r. M c C ro ry ’s m o tio n f o r a n e w trial. C ONC L US I ON T he dec i s ion o f t he t r i al cour ti s aff i r m ed. T he cos t s on appea l ar e t axed t o t he A ppel l ant D u a n e M c C r o r y, a n d h i s s u r e t y, f o rw h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s a r y.

_________________________________ HOL L Y M

. KI RB Y, J UDGE