ÿWPC‰# Ç ©¿ÓÆ A]­OÖV>K ¨¨HiÛp¨>Â!A]lxÐVaÔÐÆ0YVôéá >f<.ÌzZ(¤Y‹du¢È7‹gYÒ¤»1<$úî/QM%x=ì ýõ·£×AVKfpk²;QI|VèŒÅÞÈwnŒ!óâ¹-J‡8ÂEÖ¦¾áîDjòrªyø‚G¡jô©)|è4Á!"ŒI Gƒ¡˜ŸRm%‘úÀ%›B°ä—¡Ûõ †fFr" <¦vj&ë®»c4¹hÀOmÖk‰È,Êà?ç%Ñ(ÁŸ_ÓúŠ‹ðd„ãe~ ñè@Uò¦ØßuŸ7)Õ½:NçãÀî }¿ŽÿÆ_µeêÔ̧Tzx]Â}¬îѱâ­_×:XhO›ˆt åá0‘罟‚wéácBXn> ÿnÑ6¬÷hîKÊ©lgÒʾ]9IÚ·ßÙÑÉÍm W¡¨ìž}1§Ë¹å3$Ö¿´¾ñŸÅÝ`wcö襤5\Þ(VqW¥"É^Ö4É ?7#mt÷‚Dñ7…¤¦;ÚY,éÕ± ‰ë…E”fí*m |3ñP°ÝWæ/Z­=ñœ³¹$…øb§9Ëz¤bí¼d¦[è0Òƒ¶–mÎí`b#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy UN 0DO ½“ zP ÒÊ ^ œM¨ 0¤õw™ÆÆcÆ)Æï4µNÉœËgEvx mz 0¢‘ C3fMaOULcUT¯UNbQ B-YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 0놆†† Bqq 0¤Ž D32 D-e 0K’ ’ ASÝ Æ0! 0¤ö! 0Dš" A«Þ"˜HP LaserJet 4250 PCL 6ÈÈÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ³Ý ƒR½š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôåéò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€This€Court€does€note€that€King€had€been€in€the€limestone€business€for€some€time€prior,€and€in€that€time,€KingÐ ° Ðhas€employed€the€labor€of€others€to€excavate€the€limestone.€€However,€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€King€was€solelyÐ tÄ Ðoperating€the€excavating€of€his€limestone. ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptN—–3   CÝ ƒ ‡)ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  Ó(|3‡$©©Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]±»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5=€M3 ’Ý ƒR½š$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôåéò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Appellees€assert€that,€because€Appellantsðð€expert€used€similar€evidence€of€lost€business€profits,€any€error€inÐ ° Ðadmitting€lost€business€profits€was€cured.€€However,€as€we€elaborate€later€in€this€Opinion,€there€was€no€other€credibleÐ tÄ Ðevidence€to€support€the€full€extent€of€the€juryððs€award€for€lost€earning€capacity.€€Further,€after€a€review€of€the€record,€itÐ 8ˆ Ðaffirmatively€appears€that€this€error€affected€the€result€of€the€trial.€€Thus,€the€alleged€error€was€not€harmless.€€ò òòòSeeÐ üL ÐJohnson€v.€Ô_ÔMcCordÔ_Ôóóó ó,€251€S.W.2d€144,€146€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1952)€(citations€omitted);€ò òòòsee€also€Inter„City€Trucking€Co.Ð Â Ðv.€Mason€Dixon€Lines,€Inc.óóó ó,€276€S.W.2d€488,€492€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1954)€(finding€that€introducing€similar€incompetentÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€along€with€other€credible€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict€rendered€any€error€in€originally€admitting€theÐ N ž Ðincompetent€evidence€harmless).Ð  b Ðà  àIn€addition,€Appellants€have€also€asserted€on€appeal€that€the€juryððs€verdict€as€to€lost€earning€capacity€was€inÐ Ö & Ðerror€because€it€did€not€reduce€the€amount€of€lost€business€profits€for€Kingððs€responsibility€to€mitigate€damages.€Ð š ê  ÐHowever,€because€we€find€that€King€may€not€show€lost€business€profits€due€to€their€speculative€nature,€this€issue€isÐ ^ ®  ÐÔ_ÔpretermittedÔ_Ô.3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀJR¾ã0_Style2ContemporaryÔ*‹ƒddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,P ÔÔ,( ÔÔ+  ÔÐ ," ° €h€‚‚ƒƒ„„,ÐÔ‡XÛXXXÔÔ‡L!çMXXÛÔinterofficeÔ‡XÛXML!çÔÐ °D ÐÐ 1'° h ‚‚ƒƒ„„1ÐÔ‡XÛXXXÛÔÔ‡¼·‰»XXÛÔMEMORANDUMÔ‡XÛX»¼·‰ÔÐ hD ÐÐ +€h €à€+ÐÐ '€/”ä. 'ÐÐ-#!”ä à  / -ÐÌÔ‡X¬éXXXÛÔÔ‡X¬éXXX¬éÔÓ ÓÌÔ‡XÛXXXÔÔ‡L!çMXXÛÔÓ Ó÷ÿdÿÿÿdHÇTABLE BÕ@FÐAZ‹4Swis721 BlkEx BT BlackŠM@ÂAZ‹<EngraversGothic BT RegularxÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-)Hairline d(|G2½š$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]±»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôåéò»»Ô d(|3‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]±»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]±»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]±»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼]±»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îNà]±ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼]±»îîNà #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAUGUST€15,€2005€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼]±ÔÌò òÔ#†¼]±»XXô#ÔJOE€W.€KING,€JR.,€òòet€al.óó€v.€GENERAL€MOTORS€CORPORATION,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XX»¼]±Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Maury€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€9481€€€€€€Stella€L.€Ô_ÔHargroveÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2004„00616„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€22,€Ô_Ô2005Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXXÔIn€this€appeal,€we€are€asked€to€determine€whether€(1)€the€jury€based€its€awards€of€damages€for€lostÐ xÈ  Ðearning€capacity€and€future€medical€expenses€on€speculation;€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€deniedÐ d´ Ðthe€defendantsðð€motion€òòin€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô€óóto€exclude€the€testimony€of€the€plaintiffsðð€medical€experts;€and€(3)Ð P  Ðthe€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€an€award€of€prejudgment€interest€to€the€plaintiffs.€€The€defendantsÐ <Œ Ðcontend€that€there€was€no€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€awards€of€lost€earning€capacity€andÐ (x Ðfuture€medical€expenses€and€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€their€motion€òòin€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô€óóbecauseÐ d Ðthe€court€was€required€to€exclude€the€testimony€of€plaintiffsðð€medical€experts€as€a€sanction€forÐ P Ðplaintiffsðð€failure€to€include€those€medical€experts€as€experts€in€the€plaintiffsðð€responses€toÐ ì< Ðinterrogatories.€€With€regards€to€prejudgment€interest,€the€plaintiffs€contend€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ Ø( Ðwhen€it€refused€to€award€prejudgment€interest€because€this€type€of€award€is€applicable€to€someÐ Ä Ðawards€from€personal€injury€cases.€€We€affirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€and€remand€for€furtherÐ ° Ðproceedings.Ô#†XXXXõ#ÔÔ#†¼]±»XX„#ÔÔ‡XX»¼]±ÔÐ œì ÐÓéÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€in€Part;Ð tÄ ÐReversed€in€Part€and€Remandedó óÐ `° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼]±»àXì #ÔÔ‡XX.¼]±ÔAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô,óóÐ 8!ˆ  Ðand€òòDavid€r.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð $"t! ÐÌJonathan€Cole,€Nashville,€TN,€for€AppellantsÐ ü#L# ÐÌPhilip€L.€Harris,€Julie€A.€Ô_ÔLaBunskiÔ_Ô,€òòpro€Ô_ÔhacÔ_Ô€viceóó,€Chicago,€IL,€for€AppellantsÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌStephen€C.€Knight,€Nashville,€TN,€for€AppelleesÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÓÙ ÓÌò òÌÌÌÌÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_ÔOPINIONó óÔ#†¼]±»XX #ÔÔ‡XX»¼]±ÔÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ#†¼]±»àXß#ÔÔ‡XX.¼]±ÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡XXàXÔà  àà ` àà ¸ ààH¸ ¸ ¸ àˆàH¸ ¸ ¸ àˆà0  àI.€€Facts€&€Procedural€HistoryЈØ(#(# Ðó óóóÌÖ€ ÿÿÖà  àOn€June€5,€2000,€General€Motors€scheduled€a€test€drive€of€six€Saturn€vehicles€on€the€publicÐ `° Ðroads€of€Maury€County,€Tennessee.€€As€the€convoy€of€Saturn€vehicles€approached€a€curve€in€theÐ L œ Ðroad,€Mr.€Joe€W.€King,€Jr.€(ð ðKingðð)€approached€the€same€curve€traveling€in€the€opposite€directionÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€his€automobile.€€Mr.€Alfred€Souilliere€(ð ðSouilliereðð),€one€of€the€drivers€of€the€Saturn€vehicles,€lostÐ $ t Ðcontrol€of€the€vehicle€while€entering€into€the€curve€in€the€road€and€crossed€into€the€opposite€lane€ofÐ  ` Ðtraffic,€striking€Kingððs€automobile.€€Following€the€accident,€King€was€transported€to€the€hospital€andÐ ü L  Ðtreated€for€his€injuries.€€As€a€result€of€the€accident,€King€suffers€from€chronic€pain€syndrome€causedÐ è 8  Ðby€a€brachial€plexus€injury,€myofascial€pain,€and€associated€axial€skeletal€pain€in€his€neck€and€back.€Ð Ô$  ÐKing€also€suffers€from€post€traumatic€stress€disorder.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àOn€April€10,€2001,€King€and€his€wife,€Mrs.€Joanne€King€(ð ðWife,ðð€or€collectively€with€King,Ð ˜è  Ðð ðPlaintiffsðð€or€ð ðAppelleesðð),€filed€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Maury€County€against€Souilliere,Ð „Ô  ÐSaturn€Corporation€(ð ðSaturnðð),€and€General€Motors€Corporation€(ð ðGM,ðð€or€collectively€withÐ pÀ ÐSouilliere€and€Saturn,€ð ðDefendantsðð€or€ð ðAppellantsðð),€alleging€that€the€actions€of€Souilliere,€as€agentÐ \¬ Ðfor€Saturn€and€GM,€amounted€to€negligence€per€se,€gross€negligence,€and/or€recklessness€and€thatÐ H˜ ÐSaturn€and€GM€were€liable€on€a€theory€of€respondeat€superior.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€on€the€issue€of€damages,€both€sides€presented€expert€testimony€regarding€loss€ofÐ  \ Ðearning€capacity.€€In€addition,€King€presented€expert€deposition€testimony€of€his€doctors€regardingÐ øH Ðthe€extent€of€his€injuries€and€associated€medical€expenses.€€Defendants€filed€a€motion€òòin€limine€óótoÐ ä4 Ðexclude€portions€of€the€doctorsðð€depositions.€€€After€a€hearing€on€the€motion,€the€circuit€court€statedÐ Ð  Ðthat€it€was€inclined€to€rule€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiffs€on€this€motion,€however,€the€court€reservedÐ ¼  Ðjudgment€to€rule€deposition€by€deposition€as€the€proof€was€presented.€The€circuit€court€subsequentlyÐ ¨ø Ðallowed€the€disputed€deposition€testimony€to€be€presented€as€evidence€to€the€jury.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€jury€found€for€Plaintiffs.€€The€circuit€court€entered€aÐ l¼ Ðjudgment€based€on€the€juryððs€verdict,€awarding€Appellees€the€following€damages€to€King:€(1)Ð X ¨ Ð$50,000€for€past€physical€pain€and€suffering;€(2)€$50,000€for€future€pain€and€suffering;€(3)€$50,000Ð D!” Ðfor€past€mental€or€emotional€pain€and€suffering;€(4)€$50,000€for€future€mental€or€emotional€pain€andÐ 0"€  Ðsuffering;€(5)€$50,000€for€loss€of€earning€capacity;€(6)€$50,000€for€future€loss€of€capacity€forÐ #l! Ðenjoyment€of€life;€(7)€$75,171.72€for€past€medical€care€and€services;€(8)€$225,000€for€future€medicalÐ $X" Ðcare€and€services;€and€(9)€$1,000,000€for€lost€earning€capacity.€€The€judgment€also€included€anÐ ô$D # Ðaward€to€Wife€for€(1)€$50,000€for€loss€of€services€and€(2)€$50,000€for€loss€of€companionship,€love,Ð à%0!$ Ðand€affection.€€The€jury€also€found€Plaintiffs€were€not€entitled€to€punitive€damages.€€DefendantsÐ Ì&"% Ðmoved€for€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€or,€alternatively,€for€remittitur€or€new€trial.€€TheÐ ¸'#& Ðtrial€court€denied€Defendantsðð€motion.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐòòÓ  Óò òII.€€€€€à0 @ àIssues€PresentedÐ ° Ðó óÓ|ÓóóÌAppellants€have€timely€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€and€present€the€following€issues€for€review:Ð ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌ1.à0  àWhether€the€circuit€court€erred€when€it€admitted€evidence€of€lost€business€profits€as€proofÐ `° Ðof€lost€earning€capacity;ÐL œ(#(# Ð2.à0  àIf€lost€business€profits€are€inadmissible,€whether€there€was€material€evidence€to€support€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðjuryððs€finding€of€lost€earning€capacity;Ð$ t(#(# Ð3.à0  àWhether€the€circuit€court€erred€by€denying€Appellantsðð€motion€òòin€limine€óóto€limit€the€opinionÐ  ` Ðtestimony€of€Appelleesðð€treating€physicians;€andÐü L (#(# Ð4.à0  àWhether€the€juryððs€verdict€regarding€future€medical€expenses€was€based€upon€speculation.Ðè 8 (#(# ÐÌAppellees€have€presented€the€following€additional€issue€for€review:Ð À  ÐÌ5.à0  àWhether€the€circuit€court€erred€when€it€denied€prejudgment€interest€to€Appellees.Иè (#(# ÐÌFor€the€following€reasons,€we€affirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€and€remand€for€further€proceedings.Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòIII.€€€€€à @ àStandard€of€Reviewóóó óÐ H˜ ÐÓ¼$ÓÌà  àThis€Court€shall€uphold€a€verdict€from€jury€trial€in€a€civil€action€that€is€approved€by€a€trialÐ  p Ðcourt€if€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€ð ðWhenÐ  \ Ðaddressing€whether€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€a€verdict,€an€appellate€court€shall:€(1)€takeÐ øH Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€all€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€verdict;€(2)€assume€the€truth€of€allÐ ä4 Ðevidence€that€supports€the€verdict;€(3)€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€to€sustain€the€verdict;€and€(4)Ð Ð  Ðdiscard€all€[countervailing]€evidence.ðð€€ò òòòBarnes€v.€Goodyear€Tire€&€Rubber€Co.óóó ó,€48€S.W.3d€698,€704Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòCrabtree€Masonry€Co.€v.€C€&€R€Constr.,€Inc.óó,€575€S.W.2d€4,€5€(Tenn.€1978);Ð ¨ø ÐòòBlack€v.€Quinnóó,€646€S.W.2d€437,€439-40€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982)).€€ð ðAppellate€courts€shall€neitherÐ ”ä Ðreweigh€the€evidence€nor€decide€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€ð ðHaving€thusÐ €Ð Ðexamined€the€record,€if€there€be€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict,€it€must€be€affirmed;Ð l¼ Ðif€it€were€otherwise,€the€parties€would€be€deprived€of€their€constitutional€right€to€trial€by€jury.ðð€Ð X ¨ Ðò òòòCrabtree€Masonry€Co.óóó ó,€575€S.W.2d€at€5€(citing€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Rogersóó,€299€S.W.2d€660Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.€1956);€òòD.€M.€Rose€&€Co.€v.€Snyderóó,€206€S.W.2d€897€(Tenn.€1947);€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.Ð 0"€  ÐBallewóó,€354€S.W.2d€806€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1961);€òòDynamic€Motel€Mgmt.,€Inc.€v.€Erwinóó,€528€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ð819€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975)).Ð $X" ÐÌòòÓ  Óò òIV.€€€€€à0 @ àDiscussionÐ à%0!$ Ðó óÓ.,ÓóóÌòòÓ  Óò òA.€€€€€à0 @ àAdmissibility€of€Lost€Business€Profitsó óóóÐ ¸'#& ÐÓŠ,ÓÌà  àOn€appeal,€Appellants€contend€that€the€circuit€court€erred€when€it€allowed€evidence€of€lostÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðâ âbusiness€profits€to€show€future€lost€earning€capacity.€Ð x*È%) Ðà  àGenerally,€lost€business€profits€may€not€be€admitted€to€demonstrate€future€lost€earningÐ ° Ðâ âcapacity€in€a€personal€injury€action€where€the€profits€ð ðdepend€for€the€most€part€upon€the€employmentÐ œì Ðof€capital,€the€labor€of€others,€or€similar€variable€factors.ðð€€ò òòòDingus€v.€Cainóóó ó,€406€S.W.2d€169,€170„71Ð ˆØ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1966)€(citations€omitted).€€€€However,€ð ðwhere€the€injured€person€is€the€sole€operatorÐ tÄ Ð.€.€.€of€the€business,€an€injured€personððs€services€rather€than€the€capital€invested€or€labor€of€others€isÐ `° Ðthe€predominate€factor€in€producing€the€profits,€evidence€of€diminution€of€profits€could€be€receivedÐ L œ Ðas€a€proper€measure€of€his€earning€capacity.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€171„72.€€ð ðIn€cases€of€this€character€it€must€beÐ 8 ˆ Ðshown€that€the€business€was€personally€conducted€by€the€injured€person€with€the€profits€dependingÐ $ t Ðentirely€or€substantially€upon€his€individual€labor€and€skill€and€are€not€derived€from€investment€orÐ  ` Ðlabor€of€others.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€172.€€à  àÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€proof€adduced€at€trial€must€show€that€the€lost€profits€are€ð ðdirectly€attributableÐ Ô$  Ðor€a€necessary€consequence€of€[the€injured€personððs]€injury.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€ò òòòóóó óThe€proof€must€be€ð ðdevoid€of€anyÐ À  Ðelement€of€speculation€and€shows€all€proper€means€taken€to€minimize€lossðð€before€an€injured€personÐ ¬ü  Ðmay€recover€for€future€profits.€€ò òòòStewart€v.€Prechutkoóóó ó,€No.€86„246„II,€1987€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€3041,Ð ˜è  Ðat€*3„4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€4,€1987)€(citing€òòMaple€Manor€Hotel,€Inc.€v.€Metro.€Govððt€of€NashvilleÐ „Ô  Ðand€Davidson€Countyóó,€543€S.W.2d€593€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975)).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àFrom€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial,€the€lost€business€profits€admitted€into€evidence€stemmedÐ H˜ Ðfrom€Kingððs€excavation€of€limestone€and€not€from€his€expenditure€of€capital€or€the€labor€of€others.€Ð 4„ ÐKing€was€a€sole€operator€whose€labor€and€skill€almost€entirely€attributed€to€the€profits€of€hisÐ  p Ðlimestone€business.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€According€to€Appellants,€excavating€limestone€is€ð ðnot€rocket€science.ðð€€TheÐ  \ Ðexcavation€of€limestone€in€this€case,€however,€depended€primarily€upon€Kingððs€labor€and€skill.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€recover€for€lost€business€profits€as€lost€earning€capacity,€the€proof€of€damagesÐ Ð  Ðmust€not€be€speculative.€€ò òòòStewartóóó ó,€1987€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€3041,€at€*3„4.€€Without€a€proven€trackÐ ¼  Ðrecord€of€profit,€the€injured€individual€must€show€contracts€for€the€sale€of€his€or€her€goods€orÐ ¨ø Ðservices€in€order€to€recover€for€damages€for€lost€business€profits.€€ò òòòSee€Burge€Ice€Machine€Co.€v.Ð ”ä ÐStrotheróóó ó,€273€S.W.2d€479,€485„86€(Tenn.€1954);€ò òòòGen.€Constr.€Contractors€Assððn,€Inc.€v.€GreaterÐ €Ð ÐSt.€Thomas€Baptist€Churchóóó ó,€107€S.W.3d€.€513,€525€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002).€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWhile€Kingððs€limestone€excavating€business€has€been€in€existence€for€some€time,€the€onlyÐ D!” Ðprofits€made€in€this€venture€occurred€during€the€year€2000.€€Before€King€operated€the€business€asÐ 0"€  Ða€sole€operator,€he€employed€labor€to€do€so.€€During€that€time€when€he€employed€labor,€King€did€notÐ #l! Ðmake€any€profits.€€King€has€attributed€this€lack€of€profit€on€his€use€of€labor.€€Even€assuming€thatÐ $X" Ðrunning€his€business€as€a€sole€operator€would€be€profitable,€there€is€no€evidence€to€support€theÐ ô$D # Ðconclusion€that€he€could€maintain€that€profitability€in€the€future.€€King€had€no€contracts€for€the€saleÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âof€limestone.€€Additionally,€Kingððs€main€customer€bought€from€other€sellers€of€limestone.€€GivenÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€track€record€of€Kingððs€business€and€the€uncertainty€of€sales€of€limestone,€any€showing€of€lostÐ ° Ðbusiness€profits€would€be€speculative€and€not€admissible€to€show€lost€earning€capacity.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌòòÓ  Óò òB.à0 @ à€€€€€Material€Evidence€to€Support€Finding€of€Lost€Earning€CapacityÐ tÄ ÐÌó óÓ«?Óóóà  àAppellants€contend€that,€if€lost€business€profits€are€not€admissible€to€show€lost€earningÐ D ” Ðcapacity,€the€proof€adduced€at€trial€did€not€constitute€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€findingÐ 0 € Ðof€lost€earning€capacity.€€Specifically,€Appellants€assert€that€the€only€evidence€presented€byÐ  l ÐAppellees€to€prove€lost€earning€capacity€was€the€expert€testimony€of€Mr.€James€J.€Breuss€(ð ðBreussðð),Ð  X Ðwhich€should€have€been€excluded€at€trial€since€it€was€based€on€speculation.€€à x àÐ ô D  ÐÌà  àð ðAdmissibility,€qualifications,€relevancy€and€competency€of€expert€testimony€are€questionsÐ Ì  Ðleft€to€the€trial€judge€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€there€is€a€showing€the€decision€is€arbitrary€orÐ ¸  Ðan€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€ò òòòPointer€v.€Tenn.€Equity€Capital€Corp.óóó ó,€No.€M1999„01934„COA„R3„CV,Ð ¤ô  Ð2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€918,€at€*26„27€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€18,€2001)€(citing€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSXÐ à  ÐTransport,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€263€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562Ð |Ì  Ð(Tenn.€1993));€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471,€475€(Tenn.€1997);€òòTenn.€ex€rel.€Depððt€of€Transp.,Ð h¸ ÐBureau€of€Highways€v.€Brevardóó,€545€S.W.2d€431,€436-37€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976)).à x àð ðAn€expertððsÐ T¤ Ðopinion€cannot€be€based€on€speculation,€but€must€be€based€on€reliable€data€and€relevant€methods€andÐ @ Ðprocesses.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€*28€(citing€òòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265).€€ð ð[W]hen€calculating€damages,€expertÐ ,| Ðconclusions€cannot€be€grounded€in€speculation€or€guessing.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€*28„29€(citing€òòCecil€CorleyÐ h ÐMotor€Co.€v.€Gen.€Motors€Corp.óó,€380€F.€Supp.€819,€854„55€(M.D.€Tenn.€1974)).Ð T ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€Appellees€presented€the€testimony€of€Breuss€who€testified€as€to€Kingððs€lost€earningÐ Ü, Ðcapacity,€basing€his€testimony€on€the€prior€earnings€of€Kingððs€limestone€business€from€January€2000Ð È Ðuntil€May€2000.€€Using€that€profit€margin€and€after€speaking€to€King€and€Kingððs€two€clients,€BreussÐ ´ Ðdetermined€what€the€lost€business€profits€would€be€for€the€limestone€pit.Ð  ð ÐÌà  àAs€stated€earlier,€lost€business€profits€may€not€be€used€in€this€case€to€show€lost€earningÐ xÈ Ðcapacity€because€of€their€speculative€nature.€€Appellees€have€asserted€that€any€error€as€to€theÐ d´ Ðâ âadmittance€of€lost€business€profits€was€cured€by€Appellantsðð€use€of€the€same€information€at€trial.€Ð P   ÐThus,€we€conclude€that€the€circuit€court€abused€its€discretion€when€it€admitted€the€testimony€ofÐ ° ÐBreuss€because€his€testimony€was€based€on€that€speculative€evidence.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAppellees€have€asserted€that,€in€addition€to€Breussðð€testimony,€Wifeððs€testimony€as€to€theÐ tÄ Ðfuture€lost€profits€of€Kingððs€carpenter€business€was€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict.€Ð `° ÐHowever,€taking€her€testimony€as€true,€Kingððs€income€as€a€carpenter€was€far€less€than€the€juryððsÐ L œ Ðaward€for€lost€earning€capacity€per€year.€€Thus,€this€evidence€cannot€support€the€full€extent€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðjuryððs€verdict.€€In€such€case,€generally€this€Court€would€remit€the€verdict.€€ò òòòSee€Thrailkill€v.Ð $ t ÐPattersonóóó ó,€No.€92A01-9201-CV-00021,€1992€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€999,€at€*15€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.Ð  ` Ð17,€1992)€(quoting€òòPitts€v.€Exxon€Corp.óó,€596€S.W.2d€830,€833„34€(Tenn.€1980)).€€However,€doingÐ ü L  Ðso€in€this€case€would€substantially€reduce€the€verdict,€thus€destroying€it.€€òòò òSee€Guess€v.€Maury,€ó óóó726Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€906,€913€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€for€a€new€trial€to€determine€damagesÐ Ô$  Ðfor€lost€earning€capacity.€€ò òòòSee€id.€ó óóóat€913€(finding€that€a€grant€of€a€new€trial€is€appropriate€where€aÐ À  Ðsubstantial€reduction€in€the€juryððs€verdict€would€destroy€it).€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòC.à0 @ à€€€€€Appellantsðð€Motion€in€Limine€to€Exclude€Expert€TestimonyÐ „Ô  ÐÌóóó óÓPQÓà  àNext,€Appellants€contend€that€the€circuit€court€erred€when€it€denied€their€motion€òòin€limineÐ T¤ Ðóóto€exclude€any€deposition€testimony€by€Kingððs€doctors€or,€in€the€alternative,€any€testimony€by€KingððsÐ @ Ðdoctors€that€was€not€related€to€the€care€and€treatment€the€doctor€provided€to€King€because€the€doctorsÐ ,| Ðwere€not€named€as€experts€in€Appelleesðð€answers€to€Appellantsðð€interrogatories€asking€for€the€namesÐ h Ðand€opinions€of€experts€expected€to€be€used€at€trial.à  àÐ T ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€do€not€specify€a€sanction€that€may€be€imposed€onÐ Ü, Ða€party€who€fails€to€identify€expert€witnesses€in€his€or€her€answers€to€interrogatories.€€ò òòòSee€BucknerÐ È Ðv.€Hassellóóó ó,€44€S.W.3d€78,€83€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€However,€our€supreme€court€has€found€thatÐ ´ Ðð ðthe€inherent€power€of€trial€judges€permits€the€trial€judge€to€take€appropriate€corrective€action€againstÐ  ð Ða€party€for€discovery€abuse.ðð€€ò òòòLyle€v.€Exxon€Co.óóó ó,€746€S.W.2d€694,€699€(Tenn.€1988)€(citingÐ ŒÜ ÐòòStrickland€v.€Stricklandóó,€618€S.W.2d€496,€501€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981)).€€When€a€trial€court€determinesÐ xÈ Ðthe€sanction€to€be€imposed,€it€ð ðshould€consider€the€explanation€given€for€the€failure€to€name€theÐ d´ Ðwitness,€the€importance€of€the€testimony€of€the€witness,€the€need€for€time€to€prepare€to€meet€theÐ P   Ðtestimony,€and€the€possibility€of€a€continuance.ðð€€ò òòòStricklandóóó ó,€618€S.W.2d€at€501.€€Ð