1 I N TH E CO U R T O F APPEALS O

F TEN N E S S E E M I KE T. H

U N TER , ) C/ A N O . 03A01- 9606- CV- 00207 ) Pl a i n tiff- A p p e lle e , )

) ) v . ) ) ) D A M I A N V. BU R KE; a n d ) D O N N I E W EAR a nd J O

E G U F F EY, ) APPEAL AS O F R I G H T F R O M TH E i ndi v i dua l l ya nd doi n gbus i n e s s ) BR A D L EY CO U N TY CI R C U I T CO U R T a s J & D AU T O S A L E S , ) ) D e f e nda n t s - Appel l a n t s , ) ) a nd ) ) E D W I N TH O M P S O N , a l s o know

n ) a s E DW A R D T HOM PS ON , )

) H O NO RA BL EJ O H N B. H A GL E R, J R. , D e f e nd a n

t . ) J UD GE

F o r Appel l a n t Bu r k e F o r Appel l e e G E R A R D M . S I C I L I A N

O RO GE R E . J E NNE L u t h e r - Ander s on, P. L . L . P . J e nne , Sco t t & Br y a n t Cha t t a nooga , Te nne s s e e C l e v e l a nd, Te nne s s e e F o r Appel l a n t s W

e a r a nd G

u f f e y L A RRY B. NO L E N A t h e n s , Te nne s s e e



### O P I N I O N2

A F F I R M E D AN D R E M A N D E D S u s a no, J .1 E d w i n T h o m

p son , a p ass e n ger i n t h e vehi c l e t h a t st ruck H u n t er, w

a s nam ed a s a de f enda n t i n t he c o m p l a i n t . The j u r y f ound t hat he w a s not res p o n s i b l e f o r t h e acci d e n t . T h e t r i a l co u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t w i t h res p ect t o Thom p s on w

a s not appe a l ed. 3 Thi s i s a s u i t f o r da m a g e s a r i s i n gout of pe r s ona l i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d byM i k e T. H

unt e r ( H

unt e r ) w

h e n he w

a s hi t by a n a u t o m

obi l e dr i v e n byt h e de f e nda n t D a m i a n V. Bu r k e ( Bu r k e ) . Bu r k e ’ s v e hi c l e w a s ow ne d byt he d e f e nd a n

t s D o nni e W

ear (W ear ) a nd J o e G u f f e y(G

u f f e y ) . T

he t r i a l co u r t d i r ect e d a v e r d i c t agai ns t al l o f t he ap p eal i ng d e f e nd a n t s . 1 The j u r yt h e n a w a r d e d H unt e r c o m

p e n s a t o r yda m

a g e s of $270, 000. Thes e de f e nda n t s a ppe a l e d , r a i s i n gt h e f o l l o w i n gques t i ons f o r our r e s o l u t i on: 1 . D i d the tr i a l c o u r t e r r in d i r e c tinga v e r d i c t agai ns t W ear and

G u f f e yo n

t he p l a i n tiff’s the o r yo f v i c a r i o us lia b ility ? 2 . D i d the tr i a l c o u r t a b us e its d i s c r e tio n w he n i t ad m

i t t e d i nt oev i d e nce a t r a ns c r i pt o f Bu r k e ’ s t a p e d c onf e s s i on? 3 . D i d the tr i a l c o u r t e r r w he n it i ns t r u c t e d

t he j u r yr egardi ng t he ef f ect o f T e nn C a r e p a y m

e n t s f o r m

e d i cal s e r v i ces r e nde r e d t o H

unt e r ? 4 . D i d the tr i a l c o u r t e r r in fa ilingto c ha r ge t he j u r yas r e qu e s t e d byW ear and G u f f e yr e g a r d i n gi nde p e nde n t i n t e r v e n i n g caus e , agenc y , and t he r e b ut t a b l e p r e s u m pt i o n o f T. C . A . § 55- 10- 311(a ) ? 5 . D i d the tr i a l c o u r t e r r in fa ilingto c ha r ge t he j u r yw i t h r e s p ect t oco m

p a r a t i v e f a u lt? 6 . D i d t h e t r i a l c our t s ubm i t a n e r r one ous v e r d i c t fo r m

tothe ju r y ? 7 . D i d t h e t r i a l c our t e r r w h e n i t a ppr o v e d a nd ent e r e d a j udg m e n t t h a t does not i n c l ude p l a i n tiff’s a b a nd o nm

e nt o f hi s ne g lig e nt e n t r u s t m

e n t t h e o r y ?4 8 . I s t he j u ry’ s ve r d i c t e x c e ssi v e a nd t he r e s u l t of pa s s i on, pr e j udi c e , a nd ca p r i c e , s o a s tow

a r r a nt a ne w

tr i a l o r r e m

ittitur ?5 I . Fa c t s O n t h e a f t e r noon of J une 3, 1994, Bu r k e , w ho w a s t h e n 18 y e a r s ol d , a l ongw i t h hi s f r i e nd, Edw i n Thom

p s on (Thom

p s on) , w e n t t o J &

D Aut o S a l e s , a us e d c a r l o t ow n e d a nd oper a t e d byW e a r a nd G u f f e y . Ea r l i e r t h a t da y , Bu r k e a nd Thom p s on had be e n a t Bu r k e ’ s hous e w

i t h t w o or t h r e e ot h e r i ndi v i dua l s , s m oki n g m a r i j u a n a a nd dr i nki n gbe e r . Ther e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t Bu r k e a ppr o a c h e d G

u f f e ya nd as k e d t o dr i v e a 1971 Chev r o l e t M a l i bu. G u f f e ya g r e e d . B

u r k e a nd Thom

p s on dr o v e of f t h e l o t w i t h t h e l a t t e r be h i nd t h e w h e e l . G

u f f e ydi d not a c c o m p a n yt h e m

. A f t e r t r a v e l i n ga s hor t di s t a n c e , Thom p s on appa r e n t l y r e a l i z e d t h a t he w a s t oo i m

p a i r e d t o dr i v e . H e t h e n a s k e d B

u r k e t o dr i v e . B

u r k e a g r e e d , de s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t he t oo w a s under t h e i n f l u e n c e of m a r i j u a n a a nd al c ohol . Bu r k e dr o v e a f e w bl o c k s , s w

e r v e d i n t o t h e oncom i n g l a ne o f tr a ffic , a nd s t r u c kH

u nt e r , w

how a s r i d i nghi s b i c y c l e . Bu r k e s t opped t h e c a r , a nd he a nd Thom p s on f l e d t h e s c e n e . They w e r e ap p r e he nd e d

byt he p o l i ce s ho r t l yt he r eaf t e r . B u r k e gave a s t a t e m e n t ad m i t t i ng t ha t he caus e d t he acci d e n

t . A s a r e s u l t of t h e a c c i d e n t , H unt e r s u s t a i n e d t w o c o m p o u nd fr a c t u r e s o f hi s le ft le g , inc l u d i nga fr a c t u r e o f the f e m u r . H e w a s t a k e n

t ot he em

e r genc yr o o m

, w he r e he w

a s t r eat e d f o r hi s in

j u r i e s . T

r e a t m e nt inc l u d e d

the ins e r tio n

o f a m

e t a l6

r o d in hi s le g . A

t the tim

e o f tr i a l, H

u nt e r ha d

inc u r r e d m e d i c a l bi l l s i n e x c e s s of $24, 000. H e s p e n t a w

e e k i n t h e hos p i t a l , a f t e r w h i c h he r e c upe r a t e d a t hom e f o r t h r e e m

ont h s . W h i l e a t hom

e , he us e d c r u t c h e s a nd a w a l k e r t o g e t a r ound. H unt e r c ont i nue s t o e x p e r i e n c e pa i n a nd i n s t a b i l i t yi n hi s l e f t kne e . H

i s phy s i c i a n a s s e s s e d hi s pe r m a n e n t i m

p a i r m e n t a t 30%

t o t h e l e g , w

h i c h he e x t r a pol a t e d t o 12% t o t h e bodya s a w hol e . H u nt e r , a g e 2 3

a t the tim

e , m i s s e d s i g nific a nt tim

e f r o m w o r k f o l l o w

i n gt h e a c c i d e n t . H e ha d e a r l i e r be e n di a g nos e d a s s u ffe r i ngfr o m m ild m e nt a l r e t a r d a tio n , a nd a t the tim

e o f the acci d e n

t , he w

a s em p l oy e d bya f u r ni t u r e m a nu f act u r e r , ear ni ng m i ni m u m w a g e . H

i s d utie s inc l u d e d the liftin

go f c o u c he s a nd c h a i r s of f a c onv e y o r be l t . Af t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , he w o r k e d f o r a ppr o x i m

a t e l yone w

e e k a t a not h e r j ob, unt i l he ha d t o qui t b ecaus e o f a w

r i s t i n

j u r y , u nr e l a t e d

t ot he acci d e n

t . Si nc e t h e n , he ha s ha d t r oubl e f i ndi n ge m p l o y m e n t . H

unt e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s u f f e r s c ont i nui n gpa i n i n hi s l e ga nd t h a t he ha s e x p e r i e n c e d di f f i c u l t yr i d i n ghi s bi k e , w h i c h , s i n c e he ha s no d r i v e r ’ s lic e nc e , is hi s p r i m a r ym e a ns o f tr a ns p o r t a tio n . H e a l s o has e x p e r i e n c e d pai n i n hi s knee w h e n t r y i n gt o s qua t or c lim bs t a i r s a nd

la d d e r s . H unt e r s ubs e que n t l ybr oug h t s u i t a g a i n s t Bu r k e , Thom p s on, W

e a r , a nd G

u f f e y . At t r i a l , Bu r k e a d m i t t e d r e s p o ns i b ilityfo r the a c c i d e nt a nd the tr i a l c o u r t g r a nt e d H unt e r ’ s m

o t i on f o r a di r e c t e d v e r d i c t a g a i n s t hi m on t h e i s s u e7

o f lia b ility . I t g r a nt e d the s a m

e m o tio n a s toW

e a r a nd

G u ffe y , find i ngthe m

v i c a r i o us l ylia b l e fo r Bu r k e ’ s a c tio ns , d u e tothe f act t ha t Bu r k e ha d b een t e s t - d r i v i ng a vehi c l e ow ne d byt he m

at t he tim

e o f the a c c i d e nt. D u r i ngthe c o u r t’s ju r yins t r u c tio ns , H unt e r m

o v e d f o r a v o l unt a r ynons u i t on t h e i s s u e of puni t i v e d a m a g e s . The t r i a l c our t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i on and c ons e que n t l y s ubm i t t e d t h e c a s e t o t h e j u r yonl yon t h e i s s u e s of c o m p e n s a t o r y d a m a g e s , a nd w

h e t h e r Thom

p s on w a s l i a b l e f o r ne g l i g e n t l y e n t r u s t i n gt h e v e h i c l e t o B u r k e . The j u r yf ound t h a t Thom p s o n w a s not l i a b l e . I t a w a r d e d c o m

p e n s a t o r yda m

a g e s of $270, 000 agai ns t t he r e m

a i ni ng t hr ee d e f e nd a n t s . Ex p r e s s l yap p r o v i ng o f t he ju r y ’ s v e r d i c t, the tr i a l ju d g e d e ni e d the d e f e nd a nt s ’ m o tio ns fo r a ne w

tr i a l o r r e m

ittitur . II. D i r e c t e d

V e r d i c t A

g a i ns t W

e a r a nd

G u ffe y W ear and

G u f f e yar g u e t ha t t he t r i a l co u r t er r e d i n d i r ect i ng a ver d i c t agai ns t t he m . T he yco nt e nd

t ha t r eas o na b l e m i nds c oul d hav e c onc l ude d t h a t Bu r k e w a s not t h e i r a g e n t . O u r s t a nd a r d

o f r e v i e w

i n a case s u c h

as t hi s i s w

e l l

- s e ttle d . W

e m us t ta k e the s t r o ng e s t le g itim a t e v i e w

o f the e v i d e n c e i n f a v o r of t h e nonm o v i n gpa r t y . W

e s u s t a i n a g r a n t of a d i r ect e d

v e r d i c t o nl yi f w e d e t e r m

i ne t ha t r eas o na b l e m i nd s c oul d not di f f e r a s t o t h e c onc l u s i ons t o be dr a w n f r o m t h e e v i d e nce. Eat on

v . M c L ai n , 891 S. W

. 2d 587, 590 (Te nn. 1994); W illia m s v . Br o w

n , 860 S. W

. 2d 854, 857 (Te nn. 1993). I f t h e r e i s8

a n ydoubt r e g a r d i n gt h e pr ope r c onc l u s i ons t o be dr a w n f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e m

o t i on f o r di r e c t e d v e r d i c t m u s t be de n i e d . Eat on , 891 S. W

. 2d at 590. The r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e , T. C . A . § 55- 10- 311, pr o v i d e s , i n p e r tine nt p a r t, tha t

[ i ] n a l l a c t i ons f o r i n j u r yt o per s ons a nd/ o r t o pr ope r t yc a u s e d byt h e ne g l i g e n t oper a t i o n o r us e of a n ya u t o m obi l e , a u t o t r u c k , m o t o r c y c l e , or ot h e r m o t o r pr ope l l e d v e h i c l e w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e , pr oof of ow n e r s h i p of s u c h v e hi c l e s ha l l b e p r i m a f aci e ev i d e nce t ha t t he v e hi c l e at t he t i m e o f t he caus e o f a c t i on s u e d on w

a s be i n goper a t e d a nd us e d w i t h a u t hor i t y , c ons e n t a nd know l e d g e of t h e o w n e r i n t h e v e r yt r a n s a c t i on out of w h i c h t h e i n j u r yor c a u s e of a c t i on ar o s e , a nd s u c h p r oof of ow

n e r s h i p l i k e w

i s e s h a l l be pr i m a f aci e ev i d e nce t ha t t he v e hi c l e w a s t he n

and t h e r e be i n goper a t e d byt h e ow n e r , or byt h e o w ne r ’ s se rva nt , f o r t he ow ne r ’ s us e a nd b e n e f i t a nd w

i t h i n t h e c our s e a nd s c ope of t he s e r v a nt’s e m

p l oy m e nt. The pr i m

a f a c i e evi d e nce r u l e s o f t he p r ecedi ng s e n t e nc e s hal l al s o appl yi n c a s e s of t h e ne g l i g e nt o p e r a t i o n

o f a veh

i c l e b e i ng t e s t - d r i ven by a p r o s p e c t i v e pu r c has e r w i t h t h e kno w

l e d g e and c o ns e n t o f t he s e l l e r o r t he s e l l e r ’ s a gen t w he t he r o r no t t he s e l l e r o r t he s e l l e r ’ s a gen t i s p r e s e n

t i n t he veh

i c l e a t t he t i m

e o f t he a l l eged

negl i gen

t o p e r a t i o n . T . C . A . § 55- 10- 311(a ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d ) . The e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y s how s t h a t t h e v e h i c l e i n ques t i on w a s on t h e l o t of W e a r a n d G u f f e yf o r t h e pur pos e of s a l e . N o one di s put e s t h i s . F u r t he r m

o r e , t he ev i d e nce cl ear l yd e m o ns t r a t e s t ha t Bu r k e w a s a “ p r o s p ect i v e pu r c ha s e r ” w how a s t e s t - d r i v i ng t he v e hi c l e . W ear t e s tifie d

tha t G

u ffe yto l d

hi m tha t the c a r ha d b e e n ta k e n o ut9

f o r a te s t d r i v e . G u ffe yte s tifie d

tha t he a nd

W e a r ow ne d the c a r , tha t it w

a s fo r s a l e o n

the i r lo t, a nd

tha t it w

a s ta k e n

fo r a t e s t dr i v e bye i t h e r Bu r k e or Thom p s on. A pr i m

a f a c i e c a s e of agenc yt hus ar o s e u nd e r t he s t a t ut e . I d .

T he p r i m

a f aci e case of agenc ycan b e r e b ut t e d

by “cr e d i b l e p r o o f t ha t t he d r i v e r w a s i n f act o p e r a t i ng t he v e hi c l e w i t hout a u t hor i t yof t h e ow n e r . ” Fer g us o n

v. T o m e r l i n , 656 S . W . 2d 378, 381- 82 (Te nn. App. 1983); how e v e r , once pr oof of o w n e r s h i p has be e n e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e bur d e n of ov e r c o m i n gt h e p r i m a f aci e case of a m a s t e r - s e r v a n

t r e l a t i o ns hi p

r e s t s u p o n

t he o w n e r of t h e v e h i c l e . H am r i c k v . S pr i ngCi t yM ot or Co. , 708 S . W . 2d 383, 387 (Te nn. 1986).

W ear and

G u f f e yco nt e nd

t ha t t he r e ar e co nf l i c t s i n t he e v i d e nce t ha t r e nd e r t hi s cas e i na p p r o p r i a t e f o r a d i r ect e d v e r d i c t ; how

e v e r , t h e ques t i on i s not w h e t h e r t h e r e i s c o nf l i c t i ng ev i d e nce, b ut w he t he r W

ear and

G u f f e yp r e s e n

t e d an y c r e d i b l e ev i d e nce t or e b ut t he p r i m a f aci e case es t a b l i s he d u nd e r T . C . A . § 55- 10- 311(a ) . F o r e x a m p l e , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e s e d e f e nda n t s c oul d hav e a c c o m p l i s h e d t h i s bypr oof s how i n gt h a t t h e ydi d not ow

n t h e c a r ; t h a t Bu r k e t ook t h e c a r w i t hout t h e i r know l e d g e or c ons e n t ; or t h a t Bu r k e di d not t a k e t h e c a r f o r a t e s t dr i v e a s a pr o s p e c t i v e pur c h a s e r , but f o r s o m e hi dde n pur pos e , s u c h a s “ j o y r i d i n g . ” See H a m r i c k , 708 S. W

. 2d at 387.10 T he r eco r d

r e v eal s t ha t W

ear and

G u f f e yf a i l e d

t ocar r y t he i r b u r d e n

o f r e b ut t i ng t he p r i m a f aci e case of agenc y . T he r e i s not h i n ga bout t h e a c qui s i t i on of t h e c a r f r o m G u f f e y ; t h e p e r i od of t i m

e Bu r k e ha d t h e c a r i n hi s pos s e s s i on; t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e a c c i d e n t ; or t h e c ont e n t s of Bu r k e ’ s c o nf e s s i o n , t os u ggest , ev e n byw a yo f a r eas o na b l e i nf e r e nce, t h a t Bu r k e w

a s not a pr o s p e c t i v e pur c h a s e r . I f a n y t h i n g , t h e t e s t i m o n yo f W ear and

G u f f e yr e i nf o r ces t he f act t ha t Bu r k e w a s a p r o s p e c t i v e pur c h a s e r w ho w a s t e s t - d r i v i n gt h e v e h i c l e w i t h t h e i r know l e d g e a nd cons e n t . See T . C . A . § 55- 10- 311(a ) . Thus , w e b e l i e v e t h a t onl yone c onc l u s i on m a yr e a s ona b l ybe dr a w n f r o m t h e e v i d e nce, Eat on , 891 S. W . 2d at 590-

- t h a t W e a r a nd G

u f f e ya r e v i car i o us l yl i a b l e f o r Bu r k e ’ s co nd u c t b ecaus e he w a s t e s t - d r i v i n ga v e h i c l e ow n e d byt h e m

. W e f i nd and hol d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d ge co r r ect l yd i r ect e d a v e r d i c t agai ns t W ear and

G u f f e yas t o t he p l a i n

tiff’s the o r yo f v i c a r i o us lia b ility .

III. B

u r k e ’ s C

o nf e s s i o n Bu r k e c ont e nds t h a t t h e t r i a l c our t a bus e d i t s d i s c r e tio n

w he n it a d m

itte d in t oe v i d e nc e a tr a ns c r i pt o f the c o nf e s s i o n

he gave t ot he p o l i ce s ho r t l yaf t e r t he acci d e n t . I n t he s t a t e m

e n t , Bu r k e es s e n

t i a l l yack no w

l e d ged t ha t he w

a s d r i v i ng t he car w

he n i t s t r u c kH

u nt e r , and

t ha t t he acci d e n t o ccur r e d

as a r e s u l t of t h e f a c t he w a s under t h e i n f l u e n c e of dr u g s a n d a l c o ho l a t the tim e . B u r k e a r g u e s tha t thi s c o nf e s s i o n w a s i r r e l e v a nt, p r e

j u d i c i a l, a nd

c u m u l a tiv e , a nd

tha t it s ho u l d

ha v e11

b e e n e x c l ude d i n l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t he ha d pr e v i ous l y s tip u l a t e d

tolia b ility . T he a d m i s s i b ilityo f e v i d e nc e lie s w ithi n the s o u nd d i s c r e tio n

o f the tr i a l ju d g e . I t fo llow s tha t tr i a l c o u r t s a r e acco r d e d

a w i d e d egr ee o f l a t i t u d e , and t he i r d eci s i o ns as t o a d m i s s i b ilityw

ill o nl yb e d i s t u r b e d byus w

he n tha t d i s c r e tio n h a s be e n a bus e d . O tis v . C

a m b r i d g e M

ut . F i r e Ins . C

o . , 850 S . W . 2d 439, 442 (Te nn. 1992).

W e do not a g r e e w

i t h B u r k e ’ s c ont e n t i on t h a t t h i s e v i d e nce w

a s i r r e l e v a n

t . O n t he co nt r a r y , t he s t a t e m e n t i s c l ear l yev i d e nce as t oho w Bu r k e o b t a i ne d

t he v e hi c l e f r o m W ear a nd G u f f e y ; of Thom

p s on’ s r e l i nqui s h m e n t of c ont r o l of t h e c a r t o Bu r k e ; and

o f exact l yho w

t he acci d e n

t o ccur r e d . Fur t he r m o r e , w e do not be l i e v e , a s a r g u e d byt h e de f e nda n t s , t h a t t h e pr oba t i v e v a l u e o f t he ev i d e nce w a s “s ub s t a n

t i a l l yo ut w

e i g he d byt he d a nger o f unf a i r pr e

j udi c e ” , a s t h a t c onc e p t i s e m bodi e d i n R

u l e 403, T e nn . R . Ev i d . I t is tr u e tha t p r o o f a s tos tip u l a t e d m a tte r s is gene r a l l yno t necess a r y ; ho w e v e r , gi v e n

t he f act t ha t p o r t i o ns o f Bu r k e ’ s co nf e s s i o n w e r e r e l e v a n

t t oo t he r as p ect s o f t hi s cas e , a nd gi v e n t h e a b s e n c e of a s how i n gt h a t t h e i n t r oduct i on of c u m u l a t i v e por t i ons of t h e c onf e s s i on had t h e “ h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l ” ef f ect s u ggest e d byBu r k e , w

e d ono t b e l i e v e t ha t t h e a d m

i s s i on of t h e s e c u m u l a t i v e m

a t t e r s “ m

o r e pr oba b l yt h a n not a f f e c t e d t h e j udg m e n t ” . R

u l e 36(b) , T. R

. A . P . Thus , w

e f i nd t h a t12

e v e n i f por t i ons of t h e c onf e s s i on w e r e c u m

u l a t i v e , a n ye r r o r i n t h e a d m

i s s i on of t h e s e por t i ons w a s ha r m

l e s s . I V . J u r yIns t r u c tio ns Bu r k e , W

e a r a nd

G u ffe ya l s oc l a i m

tha t the tr i a l c o u r t e r r e d in its ins t r u c tio ns tothe ju r y . I n r e v i e w

i ng a j u r ycha r ge, w e co ns i d e r t he cha r ge as a w hol e t o det e r m

i n e w h e t h e r pr e

j udi c i a l e r r o r ha s be e n c o m m i t t e d . O tis v . C

a m b r i d g e M

ut . F i r e Ins . C

o . , 850 S. W

. 2d 439, 446 (Te nn. 1992); In

r e E s t a t e o f E l a m , 738 S. W

. 2d 169, 174 (Te nn. 1987). The c h a l l e n g e d por t i on of t h e c h a r g e m u s t be v i e w

e d i n c ont e x t . I d . T he c ha r g e w

ill no t b e in

v a lid a t e d

s olo nga s it fa i r l y d e f i n e s t h e l e g a l i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a s e a nd does not m i s l e a d the ju r y . O

tis , 850 S. W

. 2d at 446; G

r i sso m v . M e t r o p o lita n

G o v ’ t o f N

a s h v ille , 817 S. W

. 2d 679, 685 (Te nn. App. 1991). Ac c o r d i n g l y , j u r yi n s t r u c t i ons a r e not m e a s u r e d a g a i n s t a s t a nda r d of pe r f e c t i on. I d .

Bu r k e , W

e a r a nd G

u f f e yc ont e nd t h a t t h e t r i a l j udg e c o m m i t t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r w h e n he i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r yon t h e s i g ni f i cance o f T e nn C a r e p a y m

e n t s . A f t e r ov e r hear i ng a j u r o r i nqui r e a bout s u c h pay m e n t s , t h e t r i a l j udg e c h a r g e d t h e j u r ya s f o llow s :13 You m a yha v e not i c e d t h a t s o m e of t h e m

e d i c a l b i l l s i n t r oduce d i n t o t h e e v i d e n c e ha v e be e n p a i d byTe nnCar e or s o m e ot h e r he a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e r . Thi s i s of no cons e que n c e a n d s houl d not be c ons i d e r e d byy ou f o r t w o r e a s o ns . F i r s t, the p l a i n tiff is e ntitle d

to r ecov e r f r o m

t he d e f e nd a n

t an ym e d i cal exp e ns e s i nc u r r e d r egardl e s s o f w

he t he r p a i d b ya not h e r . S e c ondl y , under our l a w Te nnCar e o r a s i m

i l a r heal t hcar e p r o v i d e r i s s ubr o g a t e d t o M

r . H unt e r ’ s r i g h t s of r e c o v e r y . T

hi s m e a ns tha t M

r . H u nt e r w

ill b e r e qui r e d byl a w

t o r e p a yTe nnCar e a n ya m ount s t h e yha v e pa i d f r o m a n yr e c o v e r yi n t h i s cas e . The de f e nda n t s c ont e nd t h a t t h i s i n s t r u c t i on w a s

“ i n v ite d ” bythe fa ilu r e o f H u nt e r ’ s c o u ns e l tor e d a c t a l l r e f e r e n c e s t o TennCa r e be f o r e i n t r oduci n gH unt e r ’ s m

e d i c a l bi l l s i n t oe v i d e nc e , a nd

tha t, a s a r e s u lt o f the ins t r u c tio n , the ju r y r e nd e r e d

an i nf l a t e d

v e r d i c t . T

he r eco r d

r e v eal s , ho w

e v e r , t ha t t h e de f e nda n t s m

a d e no obj e c t i on t o t h e a d m i s s i on of t h e m

e d i c a l b ills a s o ffe r e d

in t oe v i d e nc e . G

i v e n the fa c t tha t a ju r o r w a s o v e r h e a r d t o ques t i on t h e e f f e c t of Te nnCar e pa y m e n t s , w

e be l i e v e t h e t r i a l c our t ’ s i n s t r u c t i ons w e r e pr ope r under t h e c i r c u m s t a nces o f t hi s cas e . Fur t he r m o r e , t he i ns t r u c t i o n c o r r ect l ys e t s f o r t h t he l a w

r egardi ng t he St a t e ’ s s ub r o gat i o n i n t e r e s t s . See T. C . A . § 71- 5 - 117. Ther e f o r e , w e c onc l ude t h a t t he tr i a l c o u r t’s ins t r u c tio n tothe ju r yr e g a r d i ngthe e ffe c t o f T e nnCar e pa y m

e n t s , w

h e n v i e w

e d i n c ont e x t , w

a s not s u c h a s t o m i s l ead t he j u r yo r i nc o r r ect l yd e f i ne t he l egal i s s u e s at ha nd . O tis , 850 S. W

. 2d at 446; El am

, 738 S. W

. 2d at 174; a nd G r i sso m , 817 S. W

. 2d at 685.14 W ear and

G u f f e ynext co nt e nd t ha t t he t r i a l co u r t er r e d i n fa ilingtog r a nt the i r r e q u e s t s fo r v a r i o us s p e c i a l ju r y i n s t r u c t i ons . The f i r s t s u c h r e que s t , a c c o r d i n gt o t h e s e d e f e nda n t s , w

a s f o r a n i n s t r u c t i on r e g a r d i n g“ i nde p e nde n t i nt e r v e ni ng caus e . ” W e no t e t ha t i t i s gene r a l l yt he t hr e s ho l d d ut yo f a p a r t ya lle g i nge r r o r in the o m

i s s i o n o f a s p e c ific i n s t r u c t i on t o dem ons t r a t e t h a t a c o r r e c t a nd com p l e t e r e que s t f o r s u c h i n s t r u c t i on w a s s ubm

i t t e d t o , a nd r e f u s e d by , t h e t r i a l j udg e . E ng l a nd

v . Bur ns S t o ne C o . , 874 S. W

. 2d 32, 37 (Te nn. App. 1993). I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e r e que s t e d i n s t r u c t i on i s not i n t h e r e c o r d bef o r e us , nor i s t h e i s s u e a d e qua t e l ybr i e f e d byW e a r a nd G u f f e y . Thus , w

e c a nnot c ons i d e r t h i s i s s u e . I d . A s the i r ne x t is s u e , W e a r a nd

G u ffe yc ite the tr i a l c o u r t’s fa ilu r e toins t r u c t the ju r ya s the yr e q u e s t e d r e g a r d i ng t he exi s t e nce o f an agenc yr e l a t i o ns hi p . T he r e qu e s t e d i ns t r u c tio n

e s s e ntia llys t a t e s tha t if the ju r yfind s tha t B u r k e a nd Thom

p s on w e r e not a g e n t s of W e a r a nd G

u f f e ya t t h e t i m

e of t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e n t h e j u r ym u s t f i nd t h a t W

e a r a nd G

u f f e ya r e no t lia b l e . H

o w e v e r , s i nc e the tr i a l c o u r t fir s t d e t e r m i ne d tha t s u c h an agenc yr e l a t i o ns hi p d i d exi s t and

t he n co r r ect l yd i r ect e d a v e r d i c t acco r d i ng l y , i t s r e f us a l t ogi v e t hi s cha r ge w a s l o g i c a l a nd pr ope r . W e f i nd t h i s i s s u e t o be m oot , i n v i e w

of t he tr i a l c o u r t’s d i s p o s itio n o f the lia b ilitya s p e c t o f the cas e .2 W e w o u l d p o i n t o u t i n p ass i n g t h a t t h e requ est e d i n s t ruct i o n i s an i ncor r e c t s t a t e m ent of t he l a w

. T. C . A . § 55- 10- 311(a ) pr o v i des t hat t he pr i m a f a c i e c a s e of ag enc y ar i s e s r e g a r d l e s s of w het her t he s e l l e r i s pr e s ent i n t h e vehi c l e at t h e t i m e o f t h e acci d e n t . W e k n o w o f n o au t h o r i t y i n t h i s s t a t e t o sup p o r t t h e p rop o s i t i o n t h a t evi d e n ce o f t h e sel l er’ s absence f rom t h e vehi c l e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o rebu t t h e p r i m a f aci e case of agen cy. 15 W ear and

G u f f e yal s ocl a i m

t ha t t he t r i a l co u r t er r e d i n r e f u s i n gt o g i v e t h e i r r e que s t e d j u r yi n s t r u c t i on r e g a r d i n g t h e r e but t a b l e pr e s u m p t i on of T. C . A . § 55- 10- 311(a ) . The p r o p o s e d

ins t r u c tio n

s t a t e s tha t if the ju r yd e t e r m i ne s tha t ne i t he r W

ear no r G

u f f e yw

e r e p r e s e n

t i n t he v e hi c l e at t he t i m e o f the a c c i d e nt, it m us t find

tha t the p r e s u m

ptio n ha s d i s a p p ear e d

and t ha t W

ear and

G u f f e yar e no t l i a b l e . I n v i e w o f our hol d i n gr e g a r d i n gt h e t r i a l c our t ’ s g r a n t of a di r e c t e d v e r d i c t, thi s is s u e is a l s om o o t . 2

A s t he i r f i na l i s s u e co ncer ni ng t he j u r ycha r ge, W ear a nd G u ffe ya s s e r t tha t the tr i a l ju d g e c o m m itte d p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r byf a i l i n ga nd r e f u s i n gt o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r yr e g a r d i n g c o m p a r a tiv e fa u lt. I n c o nne c tio n

w ith thi s is s u e , the ya l s o c ont e nd t h a t t h e v e r d i c t f o r m s ubm i t t e d t o t h e j u r yw a s i m p r ope r , i n tha t it d i d

no t p r o v i d e fo r the a llo c a tio n o f fa u lt a m

o nga l l d e f e nda n t s .

W e d ono t b e lie v e the fa ilu r e toins t r u c t the ju r ya s t oco m p a r a t i v e f a ul t i s r e v e r s i b l e er r o r i n t hi s cas e . W

ear and G u ffe y ’ s lia b ilityw a s p r e d i c a t e d

s o l e l yu p o n

a g e nc y . S i nc e the t r i a l c o u r t d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t find i ngW e a r a nd

G u ffe y v i c a r i o us l ylia b l e fo r Bu r k e ’ s a c tio ns , the d o c t r i ne o f3 I n t h e i r s t a t e m e n t o f i s s u es, W ear and Gu f f ey al so cl a i m t h a t t h e t r i a l cour t er r ed i n “a ppr o v i ng a nd ent e r i ng a j udgm ent t hat does not i ncl ude [ H u n t er’ s] aban d o n m e n t o f h i s negl i gen t en t rust m e n t t h e o r y . ” H o w ever , si n c e t hey do not di s cus s t h i s i s s ue i n t hei r br i e f , i t i s cons i der ed w a i v ed. Ru l e 27(a ) ( 7), T. R . A . P . ; D i x i e Sav . St o r e s , I n c . v. Tu r n e r , 767 S. W . 2d 408, 411 ( T e n n . Ap p . 1 9 8 8 ) . 16 c o m p a r a t i v e f a ul t w

a s no t ap p l i cab l e as am o ng t ho s e t hr e e d e f e nda n t s . As be t w e e n B u r k e a nd Thom

p s on, a n ye r r o r i n f a i l i n g t oins t r u c t o n

the s ub

j e c t o f c o m

p a r a tiv e fa u lt w

a s ha r m

l e s s in v i e w of t h e f a c t t h e j u r yf ound t h a t Thom p s on w a s not g u i l t yof a n ynegl i gence. V . The J u r y ’ s Ve r d i c t

T he fina l is s u e , 3

c o m m on t o a l l de f e nda n t s , i n v o l v e s t he qu e s t i o n

o f w he t he r t he j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t w a s excess i v e , i ndi c a t i v e of pa s s i on, pr e j udi c e , a nd ca p r i c e , a nd uns uppor t e d by t he ev i d e nce.

I n per s ona l i n j u r yc a s e s , t h e a m ount of da m

a g e s t o be a w a r d e d i s p r i m

a r i l y f o r t he j u ry. Br o w n v . Nul l , 863 S. W . 2 d 425, 430 (Te nn. App. 1993); Cl ar k v . Eng e l be r g , 436 S. W . 2d 465, 468 (Te nn. App. 1968). I t i s not w i t h i n t h e a ppe l l a t e c our t ’ s p r o v i nc e tos ub s titut e its ju d g m e nt fo r tha t o f the ju r y . I d . F u r t he r m

o r e , w he n t he t r i a l j u d ge ha s ap p r o v e d a v e r d i c t , as i n t hi s c a s e , o u r r e v i e w is s ub

j e c t tothe r u l e tha t if the r e is a n y m a t e r i a l e v i d e n c e t o s uppor t t h e j u r y ’ s a w a r d , i t s houl d not be d i s t u r b e d . E . g . , E llis v . W hite F r e i g h

tline r C

o r p . , 603 S. W

. 2 d 125, 129 (Te nn. 1980); Be ns o n v. T e nne s s ee V

a l l ey E l e c . C

o o p . ,17

868 S. W

. 2d 630, 640 (Te nn. App. 1993); C oy l e v. Pr i e t o , 822 S . W . 2d 596, 601 (Te nn. App. 1991); Car yv . Ar r ow s m i t h , 777 S. W

. 2 d 8 , 23 (Te nn. App. 1989). As s t a t e d i n E llis ,

[ e ] a c h c a s e m

u s t de p e nd upon i t s ow n f a c t s a nd t h e t e s t t o be a ppl i e d byus i s not w h a t a m ount t h e m

e m b e r s of t h e c our t w oul d hav e a w a r d e d had t h e ybe e n on t h e j u r y , or w h a t t h e y , a s a n a ppe l l a t e c our t , t h i nk s houl d ha v e b een

aw a r d e d , b ut w

he t he r t he v e r d i c t i s p a t e n t l yexcess i v e . E llis , 603 S. W

. 2d at 129. W e ha v e co nc l u d e d

t ha t t he r eco r d

co nt a i ns m

a t e r i a l e v i d e n c e t o s uppor t t h e j u r y ’ s a w a r d of $270, 000. The v e r d i c t i s s uppor t e d by , a m

ongot h e r t h i n g s , e v i d e n c e of t h e f o l l o w i n g : t h e s e v e r ityo f H

u nt e r ’ s in

j u r y ; hi s p a i n

a nd s u ffe r i ng ; the d e g r e e o f p e r m

a ne nt im

p a i r m e nt tohi s le g ; a nd the im

p a c t o f the in

j u r y upon hi s a b i l i t yt o w o r k a nd m

o v e a bout . At t h e t i m e of t r i a l , H u nt e r ha d

a l i f e exp ect a nc yo f s o m e 4 7 y ear s . A

cco r d i ng t ohi s t r e a tingp h

y s i c i a n , H

u nt e r w

ill e x p e r i e nc e d iffic u ltyp e r f o r m i ng w o r k t h a t r e qui r e s c e r t a i n t y p e s of phy s i c a l e x e r t i on, a n obv i ous a s p e c t of t h e t y p e of e m p l o y m e n t t o w

h i c h he i s be s t s u i t e d , g i v e n hi s m e nt a l lim

ita tio ns . I t is w e ll- s e ttle d

tha t a ne g lig e nt p a r t yta k e s a p l a i n tiff a s the d e f e nd a nt find s hi m o r he r , a nd

the in

j u r e d p l a i n tiff is e ntitle d

tor e c o v e r a ll d a m a g e s p r o x i m a t e l yc a u s e d byt h e a c t s of t h e r e s pons i b l e pa r t y . Ha w s v . Bul l o c k , 592 S. W

. 2d 588, 591 (Te nn. App. 1979); F ul l e r v. S p e i g h t , 571 S. W

. 2d 840, 841 (Te nn. App. 1978). H e r e , t h e18

d e f e nda n t s ’ ne g l i g e n t c onduct c a u s e d s i g n i f i c a n t i n j u r ya n d i m p a i r m e n t t o a n i ndi v i dua l w ho i s m

e n t a l l yr e t a r d e d -

- one w h o m u s t r e l yupon hi s phy s i c a l s k i l l s f o r f u t u r e e m p l o y m e n t . W e f i nd t h a t t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t i s s uppor t e d by m a t e r i a l ev i d e nce, E llis , 603 S. W . 2d at 129, a nd w e f i nd no i ndi c a t i on t h a t i t w a s i n f l u e n c e d bypa s s i on, pr e j udi c e , or cap r i ce. W

e t he r e f o r e ho l d

t ha t t he v e r d i c t w a s no t excess i v e , a nd w e d e c line tos e t it a s i d e o r g r a nt a r e m ittitur . W hile no t r a i s e d

in hi s S t a t e m

e nt o f the I s s u e s a s r e qui r e d byR

u l e 27(a ) ( 4 ) , T. R . A . P . , Bu r k e s u g g e s t s i n t h e a r g u m e nt s e c tio n

o f hi s b r i e f tha t H u nt e r ’ s c l a i m

fo r p u nitiv e d a m a g e s , w

i t hdr a w

n dur i n gt h e c our t ’ s c h a r g e t o t h e j u r y , a l l o w e d t he in t r o d u c tio n

o f “ c o ns i d e r a b l e , a nd u ltim a t e l yir r e l e v a nt , p r oof c onc e r n i n g[ h i s ] ‘ r e c k l e s s n e s s ’ a nd gr o s s m i s c onduct . ” H

e a r g u e s t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e i n f l a m e d t h e j u r ya nd pr o m p t e d a n excess i v e aw

a r d . W

e d i s agr ee. A

s w e ha v e p r e v i o us l yi nd i cat e d , w e f i nd m

a t e r i a l e v i d e n c e t o s uppor t t h e j u r y ’ s a w a r d of c o m p e ns a t o r yd a m

ages. F o r t h e f o r e g o i n gr e a s ons , t h e j udg m e n t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t is , in

a ll r e s p e c t s , a ffir m e d . C o s t s o n

a p p e a l a r e a s s e s s e d

agai ns t t he ap p e l l a n t s and t he i r s u r e t i e s . T hi s cas e i s r e m a nde d t o t h e t r i a l c our t f o r e n f o r c e m e n t of i t s j udg m

e n t a n d c o l l e c t i on of c o s t s a s s e s s e d t h e r e , pur s u a n t t o a ppl i c a b l e l a w .19 __________________________ Cha r l e s D

. S u s a no, J r . , J .20

C O NC UR:

_________________________ H ous t on M

. G oddar d , P. J .

_________________________ W illia m H . I nm a n , S r . J .