In Kawamoto, doctors had treated the plaintiff for an arthritic neck at least eight years before the defendant aggravated the plaintiff's pre-existing condition in an automobile accident. See, e.g., Bigley v. Craven, 769 P.2d 892, 898 (Wyo. 1989) (cervical degenerative disc disease); McNabb v. Green Real Estate Co., 62 Mich. App. 500, 516, 233 N.W.2d 811, 818-20 (1975) ("brittle diabetic"); Lamoureaux v. Totem Ocean Trailer Exp., Inc., 632 P.2d 539, 542 (Alaska 1981) ("thoracic outlet syndrome"); Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tenn.App. 1979) (degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease in neck and back); see also Damages in Tort Actions § 15.34[1][b] ("[s]hould apportionment of damages prove impossible in a pre-existing condition case, the tortfeasor may be liable for the whole of the plaintiff's injuries.").

Of the states that have considered this issue, the vast majority have held that if the jury cannot apportion damages between a preexisting and an aggravating injury, the defendant is liable for the total injury. LaMoureaux v. Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc., 632 P.2d 539, 545 (Alaska 1981); Newbury v. Vogel, 151 Colo. 520, 379 P.2d 811, 813 (1963); Maser v. Fioretti, 498 So.2d 568, 570 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1986); Bushong v. Kamiah Grain, Inc., 96 Idaho 659, 534 P.2d 1099, 1101 (1975); Lovely v. Allstate Ins. Co., 658 A.2d 1091, 1092 (Me. 1995); McNabb v. Green Real Estate Co., 62 Mich.App. 500, 233 N.W.2d 811, 819-20 (1975), superseded by statute on other grounds, Mich. R. Evid. 404; Brake v. Speed, 605 So.2d 28, 33 (Miss. 1992); David v. DeLeon, 250 Neb. 109, 547 N.W.2d 726, 730 (1996); Kleitz v. Raskin, 103 Nev. 325, 738 P.2d 508, 509 (1987); Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186, 559 N.E.2d 1313, 1324-25 (1990) (relying on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433B cmt. d); Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1979); Tingey v. Christensen, 987 P.2d 588, 592 (Utah 1999); Phennah v. Whalen, 28 Wash.App. 19, 621 P.2d 1304, 1309 (1980); Bigley v. Craven, 769 P.2d 892, 898 (Wyo. 1989). Only two states considering the issue of indivisible injury have rejected this approach.

According to his treating physician, Hunter will experience difficulty performing work that requires certain types of physical exertion, an obvious aspect of the type of employment to which he is best suited, given his mental limitations. It is well-settled that a negligent party takes a plaintiff as the defendant finds him or her, and the injured plaintiff is entitled to recover all damages proximately caused by the acts of the responsible party. Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tenn. App. 1979); Fuller v. Speight, 571 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tenn. App. 1978). Here, the defendants' negligent conduct caused significant injury and impairment to an individual who is mentally retarded — one who must rely upon his physical skills for future employment.

The jury, having reached this conclusion, would not be obligated to compensate plaintiffs in this judgment for injuries suffered in both accidents. See Haws v. Bullock, (1979 Tenn. App.E.S.) 592 S.W.2d 588. Furthermore, next to the jury, the Trial Judge was in the best position to determine the reasonableness of the verdict. See Strother v. Lane, (1976 Tenn. App.M.S.) 554 S.W.2d 631. Once the Trial Judge has, as here, approved the verdict, appellate Courts must give great weight to that decision.

As discussed supra, Willis will likely continue to experience set-backs and recurrent symptoms. It is well-settled that a negligent party takes a plaintiff as the defendant finds him or her, and the injured plaintiff is entitled to recover all damages proximately caused by the acts of the responsible party. Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1979); Fuller v. Speight, 571 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1978). Although some individuals might recover quickly from a traumatic experience of this nature, the evidence does not suggest that Willis is among this group.

Plaintiff would be able to recover in this case for the increase of her disability, but not for her total disability resulting from the pre-existing condition plus the aggravation of the condition caused by the accident. See Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. App. 1979). As noted the jury returned a verdict for $129,681.46 after hearing arguments of counsel wherein the plaintiff's attorney argued the future effect of the injury and the future medical expenses premised upon the speculative testimony.

A plaintiff can recover for an increase in disability resulting from an accident , but not for [his] total disability resulting from the pre-existing condition plus the aggravation caused by the accident.McMurry v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 2003 WL 535918 at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2003) (emphasis added) (citing Haws v. Bullock , 592 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979) and Kincaid v. Lyerla , 680 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) ). Accordingly, Dr. Burns' supplemental report need not show that Hudson's pre-existing psychological issues and behavior had "conclusively resolved" before the crash in order for Plaintiffs to collect damages.

However, a party whose negligence causes injury to another is liable only for those damages actually and proximately caused thereby. Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1979). A defendant is not liable for damages from an earlier condition or injury, not having caused those damages, except to the extent of aggravation or enhancement by the defendant's acts.

A defendant is not "responsible for plaintiff's previous condition, except to the extent of aggravation or enhancement by defendants' acts." Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W 2d 588, 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). Thus, a plaintiff may recover for an increase in disability, but not for the total disability which resulted from the pre-existing condition plus aggravation of the pre-existing condition caused by the accident.

In this regard, Pyle alludes to the "oft stated principle . . . that a tortfeasor 'must accept the person as he finds him' and the person injured by the tortfeasor is entitled to recover all damages proximately caused by the acts of the tortfeasor." Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. 979). In Town of Franklin v. Elrod, 140 Tenn. 228, 204 S.W. 298 (1917), the Supreme Court addressed liability in the context of the negligent infliction of an injury on a plaintiff with pre-existing conditions.