Opinion ID: 2435493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Strict Liability Law in Tennessee

Text: In Ford Motor Company v. Lonon, 217 Tenn. 400, 398 S.W.2d 240 (1966), a case that was disposed of in favor of the plaintiff based on a manufacturer's misrepresentations regarding its product, this Court approved the theory of strict liability as expressed in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. [1] The Court's decision in that case was closely followed by our decision in Olney v. Beaman Bottling Co., 220 Tenn. 459, 418 S.W.2d 430 (1967), in which we stated as follows: We recognize that strict liability exists upon the manufacturer of a product without fault on his part, under the circumstances outlined in 2 Restatement, Second, Torts § 402-A (1965). This result was foreshadowed by the opinion of this Court in the case of Ford Motor Company v. Lonon , Tenn., [217 Tenn. 400] 398 S.W.2d 240 (1966). This is a development in the law of torts which seems justified where the conditions specified in the Restatement are established by proof. 418 S.W.2d at 431 (emphasis added). Our statement in Olney that strict liability could be imposed on the manufacturer of a product without fault on his part, was, however, subsequently modified by Ford Motor Company v. Eads, 224 Tenn. 473, 457 S.W.2d 28 (1970), where we stated that such liability could be imposed  without proof of negligence on [the manufacturer's] part. 457 S.W.2d at 30 (emphasis added). Moreover, in Ellithorpe v. Ford Motor Co., 503 S.W.2d 516 (Tenn. 1973), we again recognized that the concept of fault is inherent in the doctrine of strict products liability. In Ellithorpe , we began our analysis by setting forth the elements of the doctrine of strict liability in tort: Tennessee has adopted the strict liability rule set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 402A [1965]... . The text of Section 402A is: 402A. Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer. (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. 503 S.W.2d at 519 (citations omitted). The Ellithorpe court then noted that contributory negligence does not serve as a defense in a strict liability action. However, we did recognize that assumption of risk is a proper defense in such cases. We explained the reasons for this distinction as follows: Ordinary negligence, defined generally as the failure to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent man, is not a proper defense to strict liability actions.... The reasons for this rule are two-fold. First, allowing ordinary negligence to bar strict liability would defeat the purposes for which the theory of strict liability was created... . The manufacturer is held strictly liable because he can more easily spread the risk of loss caused by his products, and because to do so encourages him to take greater care in designing and manufacturing his products... . Second, Tennessee courts have never allowed contributory negligence as a defense to conduct amounting to gross negligence, or to conduct which is culpable regardless of the care exercised by the defendant. Generally, a plaintiff whose ordinary negligence proximately causes the injury cannot recover from an ordinarily negligent defendant ... However, ordinary negligence on the part of the plaintiff is not a defense to the gross negligence of the defendant ... In general, recovery is not barred whenever the defendant's negligence is of a `higher degree' than that of the plaintiff ... The conduct giving rise to strict products liability is likewise not based upon negligence, and the defendant may be liable without proof of a lack of care. Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 402A, comment m at 355. Thus, the Restatement, at comment m to Sec. 402A states that strict products liability is `similar in nature' to the absolute liability imposed upon defendants who conduct ultra hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities or who harbor dangerous animals ... Such activities are generally not excusable on the basis of a plaintiff's ordinary contributory negligence ... Contributory negligence is not available as a defense to those types of conduct which are not based on negligence; for the same reasons, we think it should not be available to defendants in cases where strict products liability is imposed. 503 S.W.2d at 521-522 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Therefore, it is apparent that the Ellithorpe court found that one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous is thereby engaging in conduct which is culpable. The Court likened the distribution of a product that is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to ultra hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities or to the harboring of dangerous animals. Thus, while recognizing that strict products liability is not necessarily based upon a defendant's negligence, the Ellithorpe court acknowledged that the conduct that leads to liability based on a strict products liability theory does involve fault, as that word is commonly understood. This acknowledgement represented a clear departure from the earlier statement in Olney that a manufacturer of a defective product could be held liable without fault on his part. In 1978 the Tennessee General Assembly enacted the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978. This legislation is currently codified at T.C.A. §§ 29-28-101, et seq. Under this act, a product liability action is defined to include: All actions based upon the following theories: strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent, or innocent; misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure, whether negligent or innocent; or under any other substantive legal theory in tort or contract whatsoever. T.C.A. § 29-28-102(6). The key operative provision of the Act is T.C.A. § 29-28-105(a), which provides as follows: A manufacturer or seller of a product shall not be liable for any injury to a person or property caused by the product unless the product is determined to be in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the control of the manufacturer or seller. (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, defective condition is defined in T.C.A. § 29-28-102(2) to mean a condition of a product that renders it unsafe for normal or anticipatable handling and consumption. And the term unreasonably dangerous is defined in T.C.A. § 29-28-102(8) as follows: `Unreasonably dangerous' means that a product is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchasers it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics, or that the product because of its dangerous condition would not be put on the market by a reasonably prudent manufacturer or seller assuming he knew of its dangerous condition. Finally, T.C.A. § 29-28-106(b) provides as follows: No product liability action as defined in Section 29-28-102(6), when based on the doctrine of strict liability in tort shall be commenced or maintained against any seller of a product which is alleged to contain or possess a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the buyer, user or consumer unless said seller is also the manufacturer of said product or the manufacturer of the part thereof claimed to be defective, or unless the manufacturer of the product or part in question shall not be subject to service of process in the state of Tennessee or service cannot be secured by the long-arm statutes of Tennessee or unless such manufacturer has been judicially declared insolvent. (emphasis added.) Although the parties argue otherwise, we believe that the provisions of the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978 do not control the issues before us.