O ra l ar g u m e n t wa s h e a rd in this c a se in M a ryv ill e , B lo u n t C o u n ty, T e n n e sse e , as p a rt o f t h is C o u rt’s 1
S .C .A .L .E .S . ( S upr eme C o u rt A d vanci ng L e g a l E d ucat i o n f o r S tud e n ts) p ro je c t. 

### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE O ct obe r 25, 200 7 S es sio n H eard a t M ar yvil le 1



### JE REMY FLAX ET AL 

### . v. DAIML ERCHRYSLE R CORPORATIO N ET AL 

### .

Appeal by Per m ission from the Court of Appeals, Midd le Sect ion

Circuit Courtfor Davidson County No. 02C-1288 Ham ilton V. Gayden, Jr., Judge

No. M2005- 01768-SC-R11- CV - F iled Jul y 24, 2008

Cor ne lia A. Cla rk , J., c on c ur

ri ngin p art

and dis se nti ngin p art

. The he art-wrenc hing f

acts of this wrong ful death / em o t i onal distress ca se, which a re
a de qu a te ly se t for

th in the ma

jor ity op ini on , ne e d not be re state d he re

. Th e tr a g e dy vis ite d u po n th is family is indeed g rea

t. The re cord, like the trial itself, is leng thy . The trial testimony is ex tensive and, at times, contra dictory

. The fact that the membe rs of this Court disag ree as to how to resolve some of the difficult leg al issues–which are hotly contested–is no surprise. The case is c omplex on multipl e leve ls and reso lvingthe issues prese nted while attemptingto achieve a just result has prove n to be no ea sy

task.

I

.
I n li g ht o f t

he se ttl e d p ri nc ipl e s d isc us se d in Part I Iof the ma jor ity op ini on , I

fu lly c on c ur in this part of the opinion, which a ffirms the Court o f Ap p eals’ r ever sal of the c ompensatory and punit ive dama g e awa

rd s to Ms. Spa

rk man b a se d o n h e r n e g lig e nt i nf lic tio n o f emo tio na l di str e ss c la im. L ike the ma

jor ity , I be lie ve that su c h c la ims mus t be su pp or te d b y e xpe rt me dic a l or

sc ie nti fi c evidenc e as r equire d by

Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn. 1996). The prese n t ca s e is no
e xce pti on , no tw ith sta

nd ing the dif

fi c ult c ir c ums tanc e s e xpe ri e nc e d by Ms. Spa rk man imme diate ly fo llo wi ngthe a c c ide nt. Al tho ug h I a g re e wi th t

he pla int if

fs that so me c ir c ums tanc e s o bv iou sly re su lt in severe emotional distress, cre ating an ex ception to the heightene d proof r equire ments of Camper
wo uld , in my vie w, un de rm ine Campe r’ s g oa l of br ing inga

me a sure of

c on sis te nc y

and pr e d i c t a b i l ity to an ar ea of

the law that ha d become unwieldy prec isely beca use of exceptions. See Camper , 915 S.W .2d at 445 (no t i n g that ad hoc e x ceptions in emotional distress ca ses had “ robbed the law of logic , consistency

and fa irness”)

. I n my

view, re quiring all plaintiffs to meet the he ighte ned proof req u i re m en t s of Camper pr ovides a much ne eded c ommon thread in ca ses for ne g lige nt infliction-2-

of emotional distress. Ac cording ly , the compensatory and punitive a war ds to Ms. Sparkman for her emotional distress cannot stand.

I further concur in that portion of P art I V of the m ajority opinion holding that the t rial cour t
err ed in re cog nizi ng the plaintiffs’ se cond fa ilure to w arn claim. The plaintiffs do not contend that the manufa cture r of their m i n i v an discovere d problems with the seats after they purcha sed the vehicle. T hus, the ca se simply does not pr esent fac ts nece ssary for us to consider

the viability

of a tr ue po st- sa le fa ilure to wa

rn c a us e of a c tio n. F or us to re so lve that iss ue in the c on te xt of thi s c a se would be tantamount to g iving a n advisory

opinion. See S t at e v

. Br own & Wil liamson Tobacc o Corp., 18 S.W .3d 186, 193 (Tenn. 2000) (noting that courts are not to rende r advisory opinions). I n order to have a justiciable controve rsy , a real question rathe r than a theore tical or hy

pothetical one
mus t be a t st ake . I d. I f t

he ru le we re oth e rw ise , th e “ c ourt s mig ht w e ll b e pr oje c te d into t he lim itl e ss field of a dvisory

opinions.” Story

v. Walker, 404 S.W.2d 803, 804 (Tenn. 1966) (interna l citation omi tte d) . It f

oll ow s th a t de c idi ngwh eth er Ten nesse e c omm on law s ho uld

re c og nize a

po st- sa le failure to warn c laim must await another da y

.
Ialso conc ur in Part V of the ma jority opinion, which adopts the re asoning of the Court of Ap p ea l s i nu

p h o l d i n g m i s ce l l an eo u s ev i d en t i ary an d o th er ru l i n gs o f th e tri al co urt

. T h es e r u l i n gs conce rn the a dmission of sim ilar incidents that occ urre d prior to the s ale of the minivan, excluding
acc ident data pr offe red b y the manufa cture r, the fa ilure to g rant a new tria l as a sanc tion for purported disc overy

abuse by the plaintiffs, and not imposing a sanction for an invalid ad damnum clause in the complaint. L ike the majority , Iconclude that these lar g ely co l l at er al issues have no
me ri t.

I I

. Where I part wa y s with the majority

is in it s analy sis of t he punit ive damage s issue in Part I I I of the opinion. The jury awa rded $5,000,000 in compensatory damag es to the par ents of Joshua for the c hild’s wrong ful death. The remitted amount of punitive da mag es awa

rded was $13,367,345 for the c hild’s death. The majority aff irms these aw ards, f

inding spe cifica lly

that the punitive awa

rd is supported by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e of r eckle ssness and that the a dmission of twenty -five purportedly

simil ar a ccide nts after

the minivan was sold is harmless er ror. Concerningevidenc e of the post-sale a ccide nts, Iag ree wit h al l o f my colleagues that the int ro du c tio n o f p ro of

a bo ut t ho se inc ide nts wa s e rr or . In my vie w, J us ti c e Ko c h, in h is s e pa rate opinion, properly

e mp h a s iz e s the fre quency of re fer ence s in plaintiffs’ ca se to other a lleg edly simil ar incidents, and I

specific ally

ag ree with him that, as to the finding of rec klessness require d in order to awar d punitive damag es, the a dmission of the err or di d more probably than not aff ect the jur y ’s de c isi on to award pu ni tive dama g e s. Thus , th e e rr or c ann ot b e de e me d h arm le ss u nd e r T e nn . R. App. P. 36(b). I

concur in J ustice Koc h’s ana ly sis. Theref ore, I would reve rse the judg ment of punitive damag es and r emand the c ase f or a ne w trial on that issue.A d e fec tive p ro d u c t i s o n e tha t ha s a c o n d iti o n re n d e rin g the p ro d u c t “un sa fe fo r n o rm a l o r a n ti c ip a ta b le 2
h a n d ling a n d c o n su m p tio n .” T e n n . C o d e A n n

. § 2 9 -2 8 -1 0 2 (2 ) (2 0 0 0 ).

An u n r ea s on abl y da n g er ou s pr odu ct i s on e t h at i s “ dan g er ou s t o a n e x t en t be y ond t h at w h i ch w ou l d be 3

cont emp l at ed by t he ordi nar y cons umer who pur cha s es i t , wi t h t he ordi nar y kn owl edge com mo n t o t he com muni t y as to it s c h a ra c te ristic s, o r th a t t h e p ro d u c t b e c a u se o f i ts d a n g e ro u s c o n d iti o n w o u ld no t b e p u t o n t h e m a rk e t b y a
re a so n a b ly p ru d e n t m a n u fac tur e r o r se ller , as su m ing tha t t h e m a n u fac tur e r o r se ller kn e w o f its d a n g e ro u s c o n d iti o n .” T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 2 9 -2 8 -1 0 2 (8 ) (2 0 0 0 ).

C o m p e n sa to ry d a m a g e s a re d e sig n e d to m a k e the p la intiff w h o le

. H o d g e s, 8 3 3 S .W .2 d a t 9 0 2 . In c o n tra st, 4

t he pur po s e of

puni t i ve dam age s i s t o puni s h t he wr ongdoer and det er t he wr ongdoer and ot her s f r om en gag i ng i n s i mi l ar mi s conduct i n t he f

ut ur e. I d. at 90 0. T hu s , un l i ke com pens at ory dam age s , an awar d of puni t i ve dam age s i s not des i gn ed to c o m p e n sa te the inj u re d p a rty. Id

. -3- Whil e the introduc tion of the twenty -five post-sa le ac cidents ca sts serious doubt on the le g iti ma c y

of the punit ive awa

rd , it do e s no t, in my vie w, de str oy the jur y ’s de c isi on to f

ind lia bil ity and aw ard c ompensatory

damag es. The jury

found the manuf

actur er liable on three g rounds other than i ts brea ch of a post -sale duty to war n: (1) designing , manufa cturing , and selling the minivan wi th d e fe c tiv e se a ts, (2 ) d e sig nin g , ma nu fa c tur ing , a

nd se lli ngthe min iva

n w ithunre a so na

bly 2 da ng e ro us se a ts, and

(3 ) fa ili ng to w arn

a t th e tim e the ve hic le wa s so ld. Ia g re e wi th t he ma jor ity 3 that, v ie wi ngthe re c or d a s a wh ole , th e re is a de qu a te e vid e nc e to su pp or t th e jur y ’s de c isi on

to imp os e lia

bil ity and awa rd c omp e ns a tor

y dama g e s, despite t

he int ro du c tio n o f t

he po st- sa le
acc idents. See State v. Mallar d, 40 S.W .3d 473, 489 (Tenn. 2001) (“[W] hen looking to the eff ect of an e rror o n t he trial, we will evaluate that error in light of a ll of the other pr oof introduce d at trial.”).

Be cause compensatory

and punitive damag e aw ards se rve va stly differ ent purposes, Ihave 4 no difficulty

aff irming the compensatory awa rd for the child’s wr ong fu l d ea t h

. Although the improperly

admitted evidenc e of post-sale i ncidents l ikely infec ted t he jury ’s dec ision to deter and punish the manufac turer a s an expression of moral c ondemnation, I do not be lieve the same c an be said of the jury ’s dec ision to m ake the plaintiffs whole. That is, unlike with a punitive awa rd, the
re pre he ns ibi lity

of the manu fa c tur e r’ s a c tio ns in l ig ht o f p os t- sa le a c c ide nts wa s a no nf a c tor in evaluating whe ther to impose liabil i t y an d calculate a c ompensatory awa rd. I ndeed, the entire
conce pt of rec klessness on the par t of the manufa cture r wa s irrele vant on those issues. There fore , it is m uch less likely

that t h e improper ly

admitted evidenc e tainted the jur y ’s dec ision on iss ues havingnothing to do with punitive damag es. Ac cording ly , Iwould aff irm the compensatory

awa rd for the c hild’s wrong ful death.

I n summary , I concur with the majority on all issues except their af firmanc e of the punitive damag es aw ard. I

would rema

nd for a retria l only

on the issue of punitive dama g es.

___________________________________ CO RN EL I A A . CLARK, JUSTI CE