We disagree. "Where a trial judge has simply approved the verdict without comment an appellate court will presume that he has adequately performed his function as thirteenth juror." Jones v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins.Co., 896 S.W.2d 553, 557 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994) (citing Holden v. Rannick, 682 S.W.2d 903, 905 (Tenn. 1984)).

1951). Further, plaintiff testified that he did not set the fire and that he did not know who did. A directed verdict is not appropriate when the accused testifies that he did not set fire to the property in question and that he has no idea who did. Jones v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Insur. Co., 896 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994). This is a question for the jury.

When a party moving for a new trial asserts that the jury's verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, it is the trial judge's duty to independently weigh the evidence to determine whether it preponderates against the verdict and, if so, to grant a new trial. Jones v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. , 896 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). Like the jury, the trial judge is not bound to give any reasons for its decision to grant or deny a new trial based on the preponderance of the evidence.

When a party moving for a new trial asserts that the jury's verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, it is the trial judge's duty to independently weigh the evidence to determine whether it preponderates against the verdict and, if so, to grant a new trial. Jones v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. , 896 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). Like the jury, the trial judge is not bound to give any reasons for its decision to grant or deny a new trial based on the preponderance of the evidence.

When a party moving for a new trial asserts that the jury's verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, it is the trial judge's duty to independently weigh the evidence to determine whether it preponderates against the verdict and, if so, to grant a new trial. Jones v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. , 896 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). Like the jury, the trial judge is not bound to give any reasons for its decision to grant or deny a new trial based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Rule v. Empire Gas Corp., 563 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tenn. 1978) (distinguishing between erroneous instructions and omitted instructions for the purpose of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 51.02); Jones v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 896 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994). Parties who failed to take actions reasonably available to them to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error are not entitled to relief on appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a).

Id.; Henry County Bd. of Educ. v. Burton, 538 S.W.2d 394, 397-98 (Tenn. 1976); Jones v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 896 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994). Where they fail to do so, this court will not reverse unless convinced that the party complaining has been prejudiced by such instruction, or that justice is about to miscarry.

A party cannot allege error for omission in a jury charge, without submitting a request setting forth the correct instructions he proposed to the court. Jones v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins. Co., 896 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994); England v. Burns Stone Co., Inc., 874 S.W.2d 32, 37 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1993). Summary judgment was granted to the State of Tennessee on February 1, 2000.

With respect to Appellants' issues where they claim the Trial Court erred when it failed to give specific jury instructions, the law in Tennessee is that "[a] party cannot allege error for omissions in the charge without submitting a request setting forth the correct instructions." Jones v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 896 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994). In Rule v. Empire Gas Corp., 563 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tenn. 1978), our Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the language of Rule 51.02 of the Tenn R. Civ. P., a party has a duty to point out to the trial court any omission in the jury charge.

"A party cannot allege error for omissions in the charge without submitting a request setting forth the correct instructions." Jones v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 896 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994). In Rule v. Empire Gas Corp., 563 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tenn. 1978), our Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the language of Rule 51.02 of the Tenn R. Civ. P., a party has a duty to point out to the trial court any omission in the jury charge.