WPC!% # t U: % 0 w@ 4   # 0J) 0Ts 0^ 0h% 0r 0| 0 0  1u 0dU*rB)DC B AM%r* v~5 D3v 0@ AO H! 0D" D/R" B" 0?" 0D$HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd,cAZ"Arial RegularX(~$  HTR[A' LegalLh (Avery 4167 Post CardA' Legalh (Avery 4167 Post CardTXmXXX73XXdXXd7 UEPӀڃ"3|xH2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d-#C << G  !  #d#!    H \RA'\#d#  !   YYY FILED!X July24,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.!AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#!    H \RA'\#d#  $       ThelimitationdoesnotapplytoanasbestosrelatedinjuryoccurringafterJuly1,1979.T.C.A.2928103(b);Wyattv.ABestProd.Co.,924S.W.2d98(Tenn.App.1995).  !#d#!    H \RA'\#d#  $       Theallegationsastolatency,etc.arenotsupportedbytherecord,seeByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993).Asdidthetrialjudge,weaccepttheseallegationsastrueforthepurposeofdecidingtheconstitutionalissue.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h$$$$'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd((3$ ~!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7XXdd7   `   0  (#$  0   ! . !    H \RA'\#Xd##Xd#     R%&#A1-j|` . `@Rߛ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEEASTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE   MARYS.HOOPER,individuallyandas )survivingspouseandnextofkinof )ROBERTHOOPER,deceased,  ) KNOXCIRCUIT      ) Plaintiff/Appellant   )       ) NO.03A019703CV00103v.      )       )OWENSCORNINGFIBERGLAS ) HON.DALEC.WORKMAN,CORPORATION,etal.,   ) JUDGE      ) Defendants/Appellees  ) AFFIRMED%  ԛMichaelY.RowlandandJanetEdwards,Rowland&Rowland,P.C.,Knoxville,fortheAppellantDwightE.Tarwater,ThomasA.Bickers,AndrewR.Tillman,Knoxville,forthe Appellees   OPINION         INMAN,SeniorJudge Thisisanactionfordamagesforwrongfuldeath.Theplaintiffallegedthatherhusbanddiedofmalignantmesotheliomacausedbyasbestostowhichhewaslastexposedin1962.HediedonAugust7,1994,32yearsafterhislastexposure.ThisactionwasfiledAugust19,1994againstvariousmanufacturersofproductscontainingasbestos.Asrelevanthere,itwasdismissedonmotionforsummaryjudgmentwhichappliedthebarofthestatuteofrepose,T.C.A.2928103(a).TheplaintiffappealsandpresentsforreviewtheissueofwhethertheapplicationofthestatuteofreposeviolatesArticle1,Section17oftheConstitutionofTennessee,theopencourtsprovision.Weholdthatitdoesnotandaffirmthejudgment. Ourreviewofthiscaseisdenovoontherecordwithnopresumptionofthecorrectnessofthetrialcourtsfindings.Carvellv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995). T.C.A.2928103(a)providesaspertinentthat:0 Anyactionagainstamanufacturerorsellerofaproductforinjurytopersonorpropertycausedbyitsdefectiveorunreasonablydangerousconditionmustbebroughtwithin...six(6)yearsofthedateofinjury,inanyevent,theactionmustbebroughtwithinten(10)yearsfromthedateonwhichtheproductwasfirstpurchasedforuseorconsumption,... '   כ TheplaintiffarguesthatthelatencyperiodformesotheliomaexceedsthetenyearlimitationandthusthestatuteoperatestoabolishherrighttoseekcompensationforherhusbandsinjurycontrarytoArticle1,Section17oftheConstitutionofTennessee,whichprovides:0 Thatallcourtsshallbeopen;andeveryman,foraninjurydonehiminhislands,goods,personorreputation,shallhaveremedybyduecourseoflawandrightandjusticeadministeredwithoutsale,denial,ordelay. Theappelleesrespondthatthestatutewasenactedin1978andhaswithstoodrepeatedonslaughts,citingJonesv.FiveStarEngineering,Inc.,717S.W.2d882(Tenn.1986);KingBradwellPartnershipv.JohnsonControls,Inc.,865S.W.2d18,21(Tenn.App.1993.),appealdenied(Tenn.1993);Kochinsv.LindenAllmak,Inc.,790F.2d1128,1140(6thCir.1986);Waynev.TennesseeValleyAuthority,730F.2d392(5thCir.1984),cert.denied,469U.S.1159(1985);Mathiav.EliLillyandCo.,719F.2d134(6thCir.1983);SpencevMilesLaboratories,Inc.,810F.Supp.952(E.D.Tenn.1992),affd,37F.3d1185(6thCir.1994);Bucknerv.G.A.F.Corp.,495F.Supp.351(E.D.Tenn.1979),affd,659F.2d1080(6thCir.1981). InJones,supra,ourSupremeCourtexpresslyadoptedandapprovedthereasoningoftheSixthCircuitinKochinsinupholdingthestatuteoverdueprocesschallengesoftheFederalandStateConstitutionsandtheopencourtsprovisionoftheTennesseeConstitution.Jonesat883;Kochins,799F.2d1141.  Weagreewiththeappelleesthatastatuteofreposecannotbereexaminedonacasebycasebasis.AsstatedinJones:0 WhenevertheGeneralAssemblyenactsastatuteoflimitationsorastatuteofrepose,thereareboundtobecaseslyingjustoutsidethelinewhichthelegislativebodyhasdrawn.Thiswouldbetruewhetherthestatuteofreposefixedatenyearperiod,ashere,athreeyearperiodasinHarrison,supra,afouryearperiodasinHarmon,supra,oranyotherprescribedperiodoftime.ThestatuteinquestionwasenactedafterlengthydebatesandfullconsiderationbytheGeneralAssembly.Inouropinion,itrepresentsareasonablebalancingoftheconflictinginterestsandconcernswithwhichtheLegislaturehadtodeal.Jones,717S.W.2dat883(citingHarrisonv.Schrader,569S.W.2d822(Tenn.1978);Harmonv.AngusR.JessupAssoc.,Inc.,619S.W.2d522(Tenn.1981). ThisCourtisnotatlibertytorevisetheopinionsoftheSupremeCourt,ortoinfringethelegislativefunctionandprerogative.Thejudgmentisaffirmedatthecostsoftheappellant. (          _____________________________       WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:̜_______________________________HoustonM.Goddard,PresidingJudge_____________________________DonT.McMurray,Judge%