### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A pr il 13, 200 4 S es sio n
CHE RY L O’B RIEN v. R HEEM MA NU FA CTU RIN G C O.
Ap pe a l f ro m th e Cir c uit

Cou rt fo r M on tg ome ry

Cou nty No. C10-694 J ohn H. Gasa way , J udg e

No. M2003-00530-COA- R3-CV - Filed May 27, 2004

I n th is a pp e a l a n u ns uc c e ssf

ul p la int if f s e e ks re vie w o f a jury ve rd ic t app ro ve d by the tr ia l c ou rt , in fa vo r o f the de fe nd a nt m a nu fa c tur e r. We a ff ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Affir m e d and R e m ande d

W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., and P A T R IC IA J . C O T T RE LL , J ., joined.

Phill ip L eon Da vidson, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Chery l O’B rien.

Michae l N orth and Ronald G. Har ris, Nashville, Tenne ssee, for the appellee , Rheem Manuf acturing Co.

OP IN ION This wrong ful death action is predicated upon the tra g ic death of a six teen y ear old resident of Clarksville, Tennes s ee

. Eric Cole Riley lived with his mot her, Chery l O’B rien, in her home at 729 J ace Drive in Clarksville. I n the early evening hours of April 25, 1994, Eric Ri ley was standing in the tw o c ar g ara g e of

the ho me pr e pa

ri ng to fi ll the g a s tan k in his law nmo we r wh e n he a c c ide ntl y dropped the g asoline conta iner. F umes from the spilled g asoline trave led over to a g as fire d water heate r located in the g ara g e and r esulted in a fie ry explos ion, which seve rely burned Riley . After

the explos ion y oung Riley , eng ulfed in flame , ran f rom his house to the home of a neig hbor acr oss the str e e t. T h e n e ig h b o r , Ca

r lyle L e f f e l, o b s e r v in g Ri le y , r a c e d f r o m h is h o u s e , c o v e r e d Ri leywith a blanket, and e x tinguished the flames. Eric Riley died as a result of his injuries on May 3, 1994.

Th e vo lum ino us re c or d in this ca se de ta ils litig a tio n tha t c omm e nc e d o n A pril 2 4, 19 95 , w ith
a c o m p l a i n t f

i l e d b y C h e r yl O ’ B r i e n a s p ar e n t a n d n e x t o f k i n o f h e r d e c e a s e d s o n , E r i c C o l e R i l e y. Be cause of the limited nature of the question prese nted in this appeal, de tailed re citation o f t heD e fen d a n t as se rts a d d iti o n a l i ssu e s c la im ing tha t the tria l c o u rt e rr e d in allo w ing F re d e ric k G rim to tes tif y 1

as a n ex per t an d er r ed i n den y i n g R h ee m’ s m ot i on f or a di r ec t ed v er di ct

. D ef en dan t f u r t h er a s s er t s t h at J u dg e W al t on
w a s in e rr o r in gr a n ting a ne w trial su b se q u e n t to the first tria l in t h is c a se . B e c a u se o f t h e d isp o sitio n m a d e o f P la intiff ’s issu e s o n a p p e a l, it is un n e c e ssa ry to a d d re ss th e issu e s p re se n te d b y D e fen d a n t.
-2- history of this c ase is not nece ssary

. I t suf fice s to rec og nize the zeal, diligenc e, and pr odigious e ffort of a ll c ou ns e l in the re pr e se ntatio n o f the ir re sp e c tiv e c lie nts

. The orig inal complaint was filed a g ainst the contra ctor who c onstructed the home in 1991, the installer of the Rheem g as fire d water heate r, t h e ins taller of the g as lines servic ing the water heate r, the City of Clarksville and Rheem Manufa cturing Company , the desig ner a nd manufa cture r of the wate r he a te r. Th e c omp la int c ha rg e d vari ou s ac ts of ne g lig e nc e a s to a ll o f the se de fe nd a nts

. One by one over the next three and a

half y ear s, Plainti ff e ither settled with or voluntarily dismiss ed all defe n d an t s except for Rhee m Manufac turing Company . On J uly 27, 1999, Plaintiff dismi ssed
a ll a lle g a tio ns of ne g lig e nc e a g a ins t Rh e e m a ndpr oc e e de d o nly on a lle g a tio ns of

stric t li abil ity

in tort. R he e m th e n r a ise d in its de fe ns e c omp arativ e fa ult on the pa rt of a ll o the r p re vio us de fe nd a nts

. The c ase w ent to trial on Aug ust 9, 1999, and eight day s later the jury returne d a ver dict in favor of Def endant, Rhee m Manufac turing Company

. The trial c ourt, Honora

ble J ames E. Walton presiding , there afte r gra nted Plaintiff’s motion fo r a ne w t ri a l on the ba sis of

e rr or s ma de in the a dmi ssi on of e vid e nc e . T he se c on d tri a l of the c a se be g a n o n A ug us t 6, 20 01 , and end e d in a mis tr ia l w he n th e jury

wa s u na ble to a g re e on a

ve rd ic t. On September

7, 2001, Plaintiff filed a third ame nded complaint alleg in g fraudulent conce alment and misrepr esentation. The ca se was t ri ed ag ain on J uly 8th throug h 12th, 2002, with the jury
re turnin g a

ve rd ic t in fa vo r o f D e fe nd ant

. P laintif f f ile d a mot ion fo r a

ne w t ri a l pr e dic a te d o nly upon the g rounds that the evide nce pr eponder ated a g ainst the verdic t o f the jury . On J anuary 27, 2003, the trial court, Honorable J ohn H. Gasa way , I I I , presiding , approve d the verdict of the jury and de nie d th e mot ion fo r a

ne w t ri a l.

Pla int if f a pp e a le d a sse rt ing the se iss ue s o n a pp e a l:

I

. Was there material evidence in the record to support the jury ’s ver dict t h a tt h e R h e e mg a s f

i r e d w a t e r h e a t e r w a s n o td e f

e c t i v e i n d e s i g n ? I I

. Was the re materia l e vidence in the rec ord to support the jury ’s ver dict that th e Rhe e m g a s f

ir e d w a te r h e a te r w a s n ot u nr e a so na bly da ng e ro us ? I I I

. Was there materia l evidenc e in the re cord to support the jury ’s ver dict that Rheem di d not misreprese nt the true na ture of this heater by conce alment of what it kne w about the rea l pote ntial for dang er to c onsumers who ha ve g as fire d hot water he a te rs in the ir

g ara g e s?

The c ase is thus prese nted t o this Court on the sing ular issue of w hether substantial material evidenc e exis ts in the r ecor d to support the jury ’s ver dict. I n an appe al cha lleng ing a jury verdic t 1 wher ein the trial judg e, ac ting a s a thirteenth juror , has appr oved that ver dict, appellate revie w ca nnot-3-

be base d upon the weig ht of t he evidence, but only on the ex istence of materia l evidence supporting the ve rd ic t.

I t is the tim e honore d rule in this State that in revi ewing a judg ment based up on a jury ve rd ic t the app e llate c ou rt s are no t a t lib e rt y to we ig h th e e vid e nc e or to de c ide wh e re the pr e po nd e ranc e lie s, bu t are lim ite d to de te rm ini ng wh e the r the re is materia l evidence to support the verdic t; and in determining whether there is materia l
e vid e nc e to s up po rt the ve rd ic t, the app e llate c ou rt is re qu ir e d to take the str on g e st leg itimate view of a ll evidenc e in favor of t he verdict, to assume the truth of a ll that te nd s to su pp ort it , a llo wi ng a ll r e a so na ble inf e re nc e s to su sta in the ve rd ict, and to discard a ll to the contrary . Having thus ex amined the r ecor d, if there be any materia l evidenc e to support the ver dict, it must be af firmed; if it we re otherwise, the parties would be deprived of their c onstitut ional rig ht to trial by jury

. City of Chat tanooga
v . R og e rs , 20 1 Te nn

. 40 3, 29 9 S.W. 2d 66 0 ( 19 56 ); D. M. Rose & Co. v. Snyde r , 185 Te nn . 4 99 , 2 06 S .W .2 d 897 (1 94 7) ; City of Chat tanooga v. Ballew , 49 Tenn.App. 31 0, 35 4 S. W.2 d 8 06 (1 96 1) ; Dyn ami c Mot el M an age me nt, In c . v . E rwi n , Tenn.App., 528 S.W .2d 819 (1975). Of course , these pri n ci p l es apply as we ll in a brea ch of contra ct ca se tried by

a jury as in a pe rsonal injury

or other tort action.
Crabtree Masonry Co. v. C & R Const., Inc. , 575 S.W .2d 4, 5 (Tenn. 1978)

.
I n this products liabilit y

case , Plaintiff depende d almost entirely on the testimony

of expert witnesses Fred G rim and Paul Daug irda not only in efforts to establish that the design of the Rhe em g as fire d water

heate r wa s defe ctive and unr easona bly dang erou s, but also as the basis for the
asser tion of

mi s r e p r e s e n tati o n b y

c o n c e a lm e n t. A lth o u g h a v e r d ic t f o r Pl a in ti f f b a s e d u p o n s u ch
e vid e nc e ma y

ha ve be e n u na ssaila

ble on app e a l, the ve rd ic t a s a pp ro ve d b y

the tr ia l ju dg e , in fa c t,
wa s f or De fe nd a nt. Pla intif

f b or e the bu rd e n o f p ro vin g a ny de fe c tiv e de sig n, un re a so na bly da ng e ro us c on dit ion of

the wate r h e a te r, a ndc on c e a lme nt b y mis re pr e se ntatio n. Th e jury is f re e to
acc ept or re

ject expert testimony

and may

choose to re

ject such te stimonyeven if it is not contra dicted.
Ap pe lla nt p lac es gr e a t r e lia nc e up on the te sti mon y of Sg t. Kilp a tr ic k th a t in his opinion appellee’ s proposed business would cr eate a traff ic hazard, but, in our view, this opini on testimonyalthoug h– not contra dicted by an opposi ng contra ry opinion– is not conclusive. Expert opin i o n s , at least whe n dealing with highly complicated and scie ntifi c matters, ar e not ordinarily conclusive in the se nse that they must be
acc epted as true on the subject of the ir testimony , but are purely advisory in char acte r and the trie r of f

acts may place whateve r we ight it choose s upon such testimonyand
ma y re je c t it , if it f ind s th a t it

is i nc on sis te nt with the fa c ts in the c a se or oth e rw ise
un re a so na

ble . E ve n in tho se ins ta nces in which no op po sin g e xpe rt e vid e nc e is of fe re d, the tr ie r o f f

a c ts is still bo un d to dec ide the iss ue up on its ow n f a ir jud g me nt, assisted by

the expert testimony

. Ac t- O- Lan e Ga s Ser v ic e Co. v . H

all , 35 Tenn.App. 500, 248 S.W .2d 398 (1951).-4-

Gibson v. Ferguson , 562 S.W .2d 188, 189-90 (Te nn. 1976).

This case is much like Di c k ey v . M c Cor d , w he re the jury

re turne d a

ve rd ic t f or De fand a nt. Th is Cou rt a ff

ir me d the jud g me nt hol din g that “a jury is not bo un d to ac c e pt an e xpe rt wi tne sse s’ testimonyas true.” 63 S.W .3d 714 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001).

The ex pert testim ony offe red by Plaintiff is not uncontra dicted in the record. Defe ndant’s expert J acob H all testified:
Q. . . . I s the wate r heater that’s the subject of this ca se def ective? A. No. Q. I s th e wate r h e a te r u nr e a so na bly da ng e ro us ? A. No. Q. Can this water he ater be saf ely installed in a reside ntial ga rag e? A. Yes, a s long a s the conditions we’ve g one throug h are taken c are of.

. . . Q. Wha t are the c on dit ion s th a t mu st e xist in or de r f or a wate r h e a te r t o be sa fe ly installed in a reside ntial ga rag e? A

. El e v a t e d , a n d t h e n f o r t h e f l a m m ab l e l i q u i d s t o b e p r o p e r l y s t o r e d in
app ro ve d c on ta ine rs

. Q. Are those conditions c ommunicated to the consume r by any information that Rheem provides w ith the water heate r? A. Yes, sir. Q. How ar e those c onditions communi cate d to the consumer? A. We have a

label of tha t i n fo rm ation on the wate r heater, a nd then that inf orma tio n is a lso re pe a te d in the us e a ndc are ma nu a l. Q. An d th a t’ s th e la

be l in the us e a ndc are ma nu a l th a t w e ’v e be e n d isc us sin g in
so me le ng th o ve r the la st t wo a nda ha lf da y s? A. Yes, sir. The jury verdic t in this case has bee n approve d by the trial judge . Neither the jury nor the tr ia l c ou rt is r e qu ir e d to a c c e pt P la int if f’ s e xpe rt pr oo f, e ve n if

it i s n ot c on tr a dic te d. Th e re is substantial material e vidence in the record to support the ver dict of the jury and it does not matter that there is substantial material evidenc e that would have support ed a verdict for Plaintiff. Appellate r eview of

this jury verdic t is at an end. Te nn. R. App. P. 13(d).

J udg ment of the trial c ourt is in all respec t s af fi rm ed wi th costs assessed to Plaintiff. The
c a s e i s r e m a n d e d t o t h e tr i a l c o u r tf o r a n y f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s n e c e s s ar y.-5- ___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE