ÿWPC™ ·”Ãö] Òÿl^Šƒ¡Véx؃N±í¸‰½Ž '–yn-¹_ñ*e]Q`OebdÐ[™¢ëÔ· ÷4¨ÌÔ÷r¬Cæ µ¦'‘<,!挩ßbÔÀ zø }9;\7^H(°² 餒ômV. Ƶ–ïF °‘ &¶žÃïƒJÔ°Ú¨›°²ü̃ù¼âý]¼ÕCp?.gÎ fe0xŒ¼9þ"‰:'aúÉ,%Jÿ£Ç¶ÙdˆÑH¹>£RfÆvÞ´&”ô1¿¥œu‰ô6T°`§ÊTeQ ‡Ã>-áôÜŸ”Ä蕜¨ÉP÷A™€ÌÖÐÃdùÑGöi‰¨õvG]dÑñËÞutñ`…ɘO˜c‚Úyl¶ xϽ'^S¯•K„4Å"º‰ Ílµ‡®–²jÍpß56EÔG–~2¿VÎÁ%gõ AXóYå¼aXÍ,pÍâ <¦a›;×oÐ`sf-G`Áø£wù%uC[7.‹–˜dxHa¹¨Àµ ãæ´U#þ=†ü*×­$»Éê4çI6¯¥8ݶÐÖ܈qÍ~)œ9§ }´Õ¹ïR{`bÎXЬ‚mÞ8 U­vY.âHf¡áþfèr‡Ñ;D,%]j¶U…4F Z 0(i ‘ w@™ ;Ù UN 0lb 0DÎ UN 5` UN• 5ã UNfU:…¿U:ÞÞÞÞÞÞÞUB %ZZZZZZZZZZZZ B```` D3}}} 0D°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° AOôÆCC 0D  D/M B|¢RC&ÔøÔô3|xÀ($¡¡ ¥D¦re§D¨D©¯°±D²Ó€¾ 1Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÐ  ÐÒܰÒÔ€ X˦XXXÔÔ€ &þæ&X X˦Ôà 4 àConsumer€is€defined€as€a€person€who€buys€or€uses€goods€and€services.€€òòOxford€AmericanÐ ˜ ÐDictionary,€óóAvon.(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular +Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÐ  ÐÒܰÒÔ€ XkÓXXXÔÔ€ &þ©&X XkÓÔà 4 àConsumer€is€defined€as€a€person€who€buys€or€uses€goods€and€services.€€òòOxford€AmericanÐ ˜ ÐDictionary.óó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular +Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÐ  ÐÒܰÒÔ€X˦XXXÔÔ€&þæ&X X˦Ôà 4 àConsumer€is€defined€as€a€person€who€buys€or€uses€goods€and€services.€€òòOxford€AmericanÐ ˜ ÐDictionary.óó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ô€Xw XXXÔÔ€îAÀîXXw ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ñîîAÀÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€16,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôç­ ôñÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€Xw XXXÔÔ€îAÀîXXw ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ñîîAÀÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€10,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôç­ ôñÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d&&&&'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ¦ñ›ñ¦ññ¦ñ›ñ¦ñѰÑÒܰÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€jXXdÈXXdð7ÑÔ€X0cXXXÔÔ€Š’ŠXX0cÔñ²ñœñ²ññ¾ññ²ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órßñ²ññ¾ññ¾ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órßñ¾ññ²ñ›ñ²ñ€€€€à@j j ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@>>%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌó óÌÌÌJERRY€HUGHES€and€NANCYà ” àà ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9804„CV„00145Ð   ÐHUGHES,à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€LOUDON€CIRCUITÌà 4 àPlaintiffs„Appellants,à ” àà ì à)Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€HON.€RUSSELL€E.€SIMMONS,€JR.,Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€JUDGEÐ   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)ÌLUMBERMENS€MUTUAL€à ” àà ì à)Ð   ÐCASUALTY€COMPANY,€INC.,à ” àà ì à)Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àIntervening€Plaintiff,à ” àà ì à)Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)ÌBRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE,€INC.,à ì àñ¦ñœñ¦ñ)€REVERSEDñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñÐ  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àñ¦ñœñ¦ñ)€ANDñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñÌà 4 àDefendant„Appellee.à ” àà ì àñ¦ñœñ¦ñ)€REMANDEDñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñÐ  ÐÌÌÌÌWILLIAM€C.€CREMINS,€Knoxville,€and€RANDY€W.€JAMES,€AARON€N.€WOODSÏand€LISA€C.€BECKLEY,€RISJORD€&€JAMES,€P.C.,€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñOverland€Park,€Kansas,ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€forÏPlaintiffs„Appellants.ÌÌERNEST€A.€PETROFF€and€KELLI€L.€THOMPSON,€BAKER,€DONELSON,ÏBEARMAN€&€CALDWELL,€Knoxville,€and€THOMAS€R.€WOODROW€andÏROBERT€W.€VYVERBERG,€BURKE,€WEAVER€&€PRELL,€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñChicago,€IL,ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€forÏDefendant„Appellee.ÌÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ -&& ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€products€liability€action,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€theÏdefendant€which€the€Trial€Judge€approved,€and€plaintiffs€have€appealed.Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiffs€brought€this€action€against€defendant€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñallegingñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€negligence€andÏstrict€liability€in€the€manufacture€of€a€multi„piece€truck€rim€assembly,€known€as€theÏFL2,€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñand€soughtñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€both€compensatory€and€punitive€damages.€€Ð ;þ34ý Ðà 4 àà Œ àJerry€Hughes€was€injured€on€July€28,€1995,€by€the€explosive€separationÏof€an€FL2€rim€assembly.€€An€FL2€rim€is€a€multi„piece€rim€assembly€manufactured€byÏFirestone.€€It€is€used€with€tubed€tires€on€large€trucks.€€It€has€a€permanent€flange€on€oneÏside€of€the€wheel€for€the€tire€to€rest€against,€and€a€removable€flange,€or€ring,€on€theÏother€side.€€The€removable€ring€enables€the€tube€and€tire€to€be€placed€on€the€wheel,Ïand€the€ring€has€a€small€gap€so€that€it€can€expand€to€snap€onto€the€wheel.€€Once€theÏtube€and€tire€are€on€the€wheel,€the€removable€ring€is€then€placed€on€the€wheel€andÏclamps€into€a€1/4€inch€groove€or€gutter€on€the€wheel.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Occupational€Safety€and€Health€Administration€has€promulgatedÏrules€of€procedure€for€servicing€this€type€of€rim€and€single„piece€rims,€which€are€usedÏwith€tubeless€tires.€€The€regulations€are€the€result€of€a€request€for€such€procedures€byÏthe€rim€manufacturers,€including€Firestone.€€Part€of€this€procedure€involves€inflatingÏthe€tires€in€an€inflation€cage,€and€staying€out€of€the€trajectory€of€the€wheel€to€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñtheñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñÏextent€possible.Ìà 4 àà Œ àAt€the€time€Jerry€Hughes€was€injured,€he€was€employed€by€TennesseeÏWaste€Movers€in€Loudon€County,€Tennessee,€which€is€owned€by€Harry€Gillman.€€HeÏwas€taught€how€to€assemble€the€multi„piece€rims€by€the€owner€and€another€mechanic,ÏFrank€Jenkins.€€He€testified€that€he€regularly€and€consistently€followed€thoseÏprocedures.Ìà 4 àà Œ àOn€the€day€of€the€accident,€he€took€a€tire€off€a€truck€to€repair,€andÏreplaced€the€tire,€tube,€and€ring,€then€rolled€the€assembly€to€the€safety€cage€andÏinflated€it.€€Once€he€inflated€it€to€80€PSI,€he€rolled€it€out€of€the€safety€cage€and€over€toÏthe€truck.€€He€mounted€the€tire€to€the€axle€and€began€tightening€the€lug€nuts.€€TheÏwheel€assembly€then€explosively€separated,€hitting€Hughes€in€the€head€and€seriouslyÏinjuring€him.€€Though€he€testified€that€he€was€not€certain€whether€he€followed€allÏsafety€procedures,€it€is€plaintiffsðð€theory€that€all€proper€procedures€were€followed€andÐ 922 Ðthe€explosion€was€caused€by€a€design€defect.Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiffs€claim€that€the€FL2€rim€is€defective€because€it€has€a€proclivityÏto€explosively€separate,€and€that€it€has€no€redundant€or€backup€system€to€positivelyÏlock€the€multiple€components€together€to€prevent€separation€under€inflation€pressure,Ïand€that€the€ring€will€not€always€snap€fully€into€the€gutter€and€the€servicemen€will€notÏbe€able€to€discern€the€ring€is€not€in€place.€€If€the€ring€is€substantially,€but€notÏcompletely,€engaged,€it€can€be€inflated€to€high€pressure€and€come€off€later.€€ThisÏtheory€was€advanced€through€the€testimony€of€plaintiffsðð€expert,€a€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñDr.€Alanñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€Milner.Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiffs€offered€evidence€that€Firestone€knew€of€the€proclivity€of€theÏFL2€to€explosively€separate,€yet€continued€to€manufacturer€the€rim€when€there€was€aÏsafer€alternative.€€The€alternative€is€the€15ð$ð€drop€center€single„piece€rim,€which€isÐ XP Ðused€with€tubeless€tires.€€It€does€not€have€a€removable€ring€that€can€come€off€andÏinjure€the€servicemen.€€Documents€were€offered€demonstrating€that€Firestone€activelyÏpromoted€the€single„piece€rim€as€a€safer€alternative€to€the€multi„piece.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiffsðð€argue€that€the€procedures€advocated€by€Firestone€and€OSHAÏin€servicing€these€multi„piece€rims€do€not€adequately€protect€servicemen€from€danger,Ïand€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñtheyñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€do€not€adequately€warn€of€the€danger.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€defendant€presented€evidence€through€its€expert,€Dennis€Whalen,Ïthat€plaintiff€was€injured€because€he€misassembled€the€rim.€€Whalen€testified€that€onceÏa€serviceable€side€ring€is€fully€assembled€into€the€gutter,€a€condition€that€can€be€seenÏand€heard,€the€side€ring€will€ð ðhugðð€the€rim€base.€€When€the€tire€is€pressurized,€the€airÏlocks€all€components€together€for€full€circumference€and€the€ring€cannot€come€out€ofÏthe€gutter€until€the€pressure€is€released€and€a€tool€is€used€to€remove€the€ring.€€But,€ifÏthe€side€ring€is€not€fully€seated,€which€can€be€seen,€the€ring€may€separate€during€orÏafter€inflation.€€It€was€Whalenððs€opinion€that€plaintiff€was€injured€because€heÏmisassembled€the€parts.€€He€testified€that€there€were€two€impact€marks€on€the€rimsÐ Ð9È22 Ðwhich€he€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñsuspectedñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€were€caused€by€plaintiff€striking€it€with€something,€which€wouldÏbe€an€improper€procedure.€€Another€witness€testified€that€a€hammer€was€nearby,Ïcreating€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñanñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€inference€that€Hughes€struck€the€rim€with€a€hammer€to€seat€the€ring.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€defendant€offered€evidence€that€the€rim€industry,€includingÏFirestone,€has€advocated€and€adhered€to€long„standing€truck€tire€and€rim€servicingÏsafety€rules€and€procedures.€€They€had€petitioned€OSHA€for€an€industry€wide€standardÏin€truck€rim€servicing.€€Firestone€itself€helped€draft€the€safety€procedures€and€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñit€had€ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñÏdesigned€a€wall€chart€to€be€disseminated€to€employers.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€defendantððs€proof€indicated€that€while€the€single„piece€rim€can€beÏused€interchangeably€with€the€multi„piece€rim,€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñitñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€is€not€the€answer€to€all€the€hazards€ofÏtruck€tires.€€The€single„piece€rim€still€presents€dangers€in€servicing€because€it€is€aÏpressure€vessel€and€is€under€very€high€pressure.Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiff€raises€several€issues€on€appeal€with€numerous€sub„issues.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€dispositive€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñpart€of€the€chargeñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€by€the€TrialÏJudge,€as€requested€by€the€defendant,€relative€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð29„28„¼104,€is€reversible€error.Ìà 4 àà Œ àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„104€(1980)€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 4 àò òà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àCompliance€with€government€standards€„„€RebuttableÐ )ˆ"" Ðpresumption.€„„ó ó€Compliance€by€a€manufacturer€or€seller€withÐ ”*Œ## Ðany€federal€or€state€statute€or€administrative€regulation€existing€atÏthe€time€a€product€was€manufactured€and€prescribing€standardsÏfor€design,€inspection,€testing,€manufacture,€labeling,€warning€orÏinstructions€for€use€of€a€product,€shall€raise€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€that€the€product€is€not€in€an€unreasonably€dangerousÏcondition€in€regard€to€matters€covered€by€these€standards.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓp#ÓThe€defendant€requested€the€following€instruction€based€on€this€statute:ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àIn€determining€whether€the€FL€rim€design€in€this€case€was€in€aÏdefective€condition€or€unreasonably€dangerous€to€plaintiffs,€youÏmay€consider€Bridgestone/Firestone,€Inc.ððs€compliance€with€anyÏfederal€or€state€statutes€or€administrative€regulations€prescribingÏthe€standards€for€design,€inspection,€testing,€manufacturing,Ïlabeling,€warning€or€instructions€for€use€of€a€product€existing€atÐ Ð9È22 Ðthe€time€the€FL€rim€design€in€this€case€was€manufactured.€€If€youÏfind€that€Bridgestone/Firestone,€Inc.€did€in€fact€comply€with€suchÏregulations€and/or€statutes,€you€must€presume€that€the€FL€rimÏdesign€is€not€unreasonably€dangerous€or€in€a€defective€conditionÏand€it€is€then€the€plaintiffsðð€burden€of€rebutting€that€presumptionÏby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓ4&Óà 4 àà Œ àAfter€setting€forth€the€standards€of€liability€for€negligence€and€strictÏliability,€the€trial€court€gave€the€following€instruction:ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àYou€have€heard€testimony€referencing€the€OSHA€regulations€forÏservicing€the€FL€wheels.€€The€Court€allowed€testimony€aboutÏthese€regulations.€€However,€you€are€instructed€that€complianceÏwith€these€safety€standards€does€not€mean€the€FL€wheels€wereÏnot€defective€nor€does€a€failure€to€comply€mean€that€it€wasÏdefective.€€Testimony€about€the€regulations€is€merely€evidence€ofÏa€minimum€standard€established€by€the€federal€government.€€InÏTennessee€the€legislature€has€passed€certain€laws€which€areÏpublished€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated.€€One€such€law€is€T.C.A.Ï29„28„104,€Compliance€with€Government€Standards,€RebuttableÏPresumption.€€The€law€reads€as€follows:€ð ðCompliance€by€aÏmanufacturer€or€seller€with€any€federal€or€state€statute€orÏadministrative€regulation€existing€at€the€time€a€product€wasÏmanufactured€and€prescribing€standards€for€design,€inspection,Ïtesting,€manufacture,€labeling,€warning,€or€instructions€for€use€ofÏa€product€shall€raise€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€the€product€isÏnot€in€an€unreasonably€dangerous€condition€in€regard€to€mattersÏcovered€by€these€standards.ðð€€Thatððs€the€end€of€the€statute.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  Ðà8 4 àòòà Œ àÐ 4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àThus€compliance€with€OSHA€regulations€creates€a€presumption€that€theÏFL€wheel€was€not€unreasonably€dangerous€as€to€those€standards€only,Ïwhich€presumption€may€be€overcome€by€competent€evidence.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐóóÌÓ9*Ó(emphasis€added).Ìà 4 àà Œ àCongress€created€the€Occupational€Safety€and€Health€Act€to€ð ðassure€soÏfar€as€possible€every€working€man€and€woman€in€the€Nation€safe€and€healthfulÏworking€conditions.ðð€€29€U.S.C.€ðð€651(b)€(1994).€€To€further€this€goal,€CongressÏimposed€statutory€duties€on€employers€and€employees.€€The€statute€provides:ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð à(a)€Each€employer„„Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  Ðà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àÐ Œ Ð Œ Ð  Ðà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#à(1)€shall€furnish€to€each€of€his€employees€employment€and€a€place€ofÏemployment€which€are€free€from€recognized€hazards€that€are€causing€orÏare€likely€to€cause€death€or€serious€physical€harm€to€his€employees;Ð Œ (#Œ (# Ðà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð à(2)€shall€comply€with€occupational€safety€and€health€standardsÏpromulgated€under€this€chapter.ÐÐ9È22Œ Ð Œ Ð  Їà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð à(b)€Each€employee€shall€comply€with€occupational€safety€andÏhealth€standards€and€all€rules,€regulations,€and€orders€issuedÏpursuant€to€this€chapter€which€are€applicable€to€his€own€actionsÏand€conduct.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓ1Ó29€U.S.C.€ðð€654€(1994).€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€statute€further€provides,€ð ðNothing€in€this€chapter€shall€be€construedÏto€supersede€or€in€any€manner€effect€any€workmenððs€compensation€law€or€to€enlargeÏor€diminish€or€affect€in€any€other€manner€the€common€law€or€statutory€rights,€duties,Ïor€liabilities€of€employers€and€employees€under€any€law€with€respect€to€injuries,Ïdiseases€or€death€of€employees€arising€out€of,€or€in€the€course€of,€employment.ðð€€29ÏU.S.C.€ðð€653(b)(4)€(1994).Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€OSHA€regulations€at€issue€in€this€case€are€contained€in€29€C.F.R.€ððÏ1910.177€(1998).€€Under€the€heading€ð ðScope,ðð€the€regulations€state,€€ð ðThis€sectionÏapplies€to€the€servicing€of€multi„piece€and€single€piece€rim€wheels€used€on€largeÏvehicles€such€as€trucks,€tractors,€trailers,€buses€and€off„road€machines.ðð€€29€C.F.R.€ððÏ1910.177(a)(1).€€ð ðServiceðð€is€defined€as€ð ðthe€mounting€and€demounting€of€rim€wheels,Ïand€related€activities€such€as€inflating,€deflating,€installing,€removing,€and€handling.ðð€Ï29€C.F.R.€ðð€1910.177(b).€€The€phrase€ð ðthe€employer€shallðð€is€repeated€throughout€theÏregulations.€€The€only€mention€of€a€manufacturer€is€in€the€definition€of€ð ðrim€manual,ððÏwhich€is€defined€as€ð ða€publication€containing€instructions€from€the€manufacturer€orÏother€qualified€organization€for€correct€mounting,€demounting,€maintenance,€andÏsafety€precautions€peculiar€to€the€type€of€wheel€being€serviced.ðð€€29€C.F.R.Ï1910.177(b).€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àWe€conclude€that€based€on€the€purpose€of€the€OSHA€regulations€and€theÏlanguage€of€the€Tennessee€statute,€that€the€Courtððs€instruction€on€the€rebuttableÏpresumption€was€erroneously€given.€€This€precise€issue€was€addressed€in€the€case€ofÏòòTuggle€v.€Raymond€Corp.óó,€868€S.W.2d€621€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€In€òòTuggle,óó€theÐ Ì8Ä11 Ðplaintiff€was€injured€when€the€forklift€he€was€operating€crashed€into€a€wall,€throwingÏhim€out€of€the€operatorððs€compartment€and€pinning€him€between€the€forklift€and€theÏwall.€€The€plaintiff€sued€the€manufacturer€of€the€forklift,€contending€that€it€wasÏdefective€because€there€was€no€barrier€to€prevent€the€intrusion€of€objects€into€theÏoperatorððs€compartment€or€to€prevent€the€operator€from€being€thrown€out€of€theÏcompartment.€€The€manufacturer€introduced€evidence€of€an€OSHA€regulation€thatÏrecommends€against€operator€enclosures,€because€rapid€and€unobstructed€ingress€andÏegress€is€considered€more€desirable.€€The€evidence€was€offered€as€relevant€to€the€stateÏof€the€art€in€forklift€design€at€the€time€of€manufacture.€€The€manufacturer€requested€anÏinstruction€on€the€rebuttable€presumption€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„104,€which€theÏTrial€Court€refused.€€This€Court€upheld€that€decision,€stating€ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àWe€approve€of€the€trial€courtððs€statement€that€the€purpose€ofÏT.C.A.€ðð€29„28„104€is€ð ðto€give€refuge€to€the€manufacturer€who€isÏoperating€in€good€faith€and€[in]€compliance€of€what€the€lawÏrequires€him€to€do.ðð€We€hold€that€the€plain€language€of€T.C.A.€ððÏ29„28„104€is€that€the€presumption€is€limited€to€ð ðmatters€coveredÏby€these€standards.ðð€€The€OSHA€regulations€ð ðcoverðð€or€areÏapplicable€to€an€employerððs€conduct,€not€a€manufacturerððsÏconduct.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓÃ?ÓòòId.óó€at€625.òò€€Also€see€Minichello€v.€U.S.€Industries,€Incóó.,€756€F.2d€26,€29€(6th€Cir.€1985)Ð „&| Ð(stating€OSHA€regulations€apply€only€to€employerððs€conduct).€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àExamining€the€language€of€the€statute€reveals€that€this€interpretation€isÏcorrect.€€The€statute€states€that€ð ðòòComplianceóó€by€a€manufacturer€.€.€.€with€any€federal€orÐ œ,”%% Ðstate€statute€or€administrative€regulation€.€.€.€shall€raise€a€rebuttable€presumption€thatÏthe€product€is€not€in€an€unreasonably€dangerous€condition€òòin€regard€to€mattersÐ ¬0¤)) Ðcovered€by€these€standardsóó.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„104€(1980)€(emphasis€added).€Ð ´2¬++ ÐThe€OSHA€standards€cover€an€employerððs€conduct,€not€a€manufacturerððs€conduct.€€òòSeeÐ ¼4´-- Ðóó29€U.S.C.€ðððð€651„654;€29€C.F.R.€ðð€1910.177.€€A€manufacturer€cannot€comply€withÐ Ä6¼// Ðstandards€that€do€not€apply€to€the€manufacturerððs€conduct.€€Thus€the€rebuttableÐ Ì8Ä11 Ðpresumption€is€not€applicable€in€this€case.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€defendant€attempts€to€counter€this€clear€language€in€the€statute€andÏin€òòTuggleóó€with€the€argument€that€the€OSHA€system€contemplates€action€by€the€rimÐ   Ðmanufacturers€in€supplying€the€required€rim€manuals€and€safety€information,€makingÏthe€OSHA€regulations€apply€to€rim€manufacturers.€€The€defendant€is€correct€that€theÏOSHA€system€contemplates€cooperation€by€rim€manufacturers€in€distributingÏwarnings.€€The€ð ðrim€manualsðð€mentioned€in€the€regulation€are€to€come€from€either€theÏrim€manufacturer€or€another€qualified€organization.€€òòSee€óó29€C.F.R.€ðð€1910.177(b).€Ð @8 ÐOSHA€needs€the€cooperation€of€the€rim€manufacturers€to€develop€and€disseminateÏwarning€information.€€However,€once€OSHA€receives€the€information€and€theÏinformation€is€disseminated€to€employers,€the€regulations€affect€employerððs€conduct,Ïnot€the€manufacturerððs€conduct.€€The€OSHA€system€may€contemplate€assistance€byÏthe€manufacturer,€but€nothing€in€the€regulation€requires€the€manufacturer€to€doÏanything.€€Accordingly,€assistance€to€OSHA€in€disseminating€warning€information€isÏrelevant€to€the€defendantððs€efforts€to€warn€about€its€product,€but€it€does€not€renderÏOSHA€regulations€applicable€to€its€conduct.Ìà 4 àà Œ àDefendant€also€argues€that€this€presumption€applies€because€theÏplaintiffs€alleged€in€their€Complaint€that€the€defendant€violated€its€duties€underÏOSHA.€€In€their€Complaint,€the€plaintiffs€allege€that€the€defendant€was€liable€forÏð ðnegligently,€carelessly,€and€wantonly€ignoring€and€failing€to€reasonably€respond€toÏthe€findings,€conclusions,€recommendations€and/or€regulations€of€the€United€StatesÏDepartment€of€Labor€Occupational€Safety€and€health€Administration,€the€U.S.€TireÏand€Rim€Association,€and€the€Insurance€institute€for€Highway€Safety.ðð€€By€makingÏthis€allegation,€the€plaintiffs€did€make€the€OSHA€regulations€relevant€to€theÏdefendantððs€conduct,€but€they€did€not€charge€that€the€defendant€breached€duties€it€hadÏunder€the€OSHA€regulations.€€They€alleged€that€the€defendant€negligently€failed€toÐ Ð9È22 Ðrespond€to€OSHA.€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñMoreover,ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€they€challenged€the€proposed€jury€instruction€for€theÏprecise€reasons€it€is€invalid.€€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñÌà 4 àà Œ àTheñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€issue€thus€becomes€whether€the€charging€of€this€erroneousÏñ¦ñœñ¦ñinstructionñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€is€reversible€error.€€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñòòSee€óóRule€36(b),€T.R.A.P.€€Inñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€this€regard,€the€juryÐ   Ðinstruction€must€be€considered€as€a€whole,€and€will€be€upheld€so€long€as€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñit€doesnððt€ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñÏmislead€the€jury.€€The€court€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñwillñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€assume€that€the€jury€followed€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñtheñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€instructions.€€òòSmithÐ 0(  Ðv.€Detroit€Marine€Engineering€Corp.óó,€712€S.W.2d€472,€475€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€Ð 80  Ðà 4 àà Œ àTwo€cases€are€instructive€on€this€issue.€€In€òòSmith€v.€Detroit€MarineÐ @8 ÐEngineering€Corp.óó,€the€Court€found€reversible€error€because€the€trial€court€instructedÐ H@ Ðthe€jury€that€it€must€find€a€product€to€be€both€defective€òòand€óóunreasonably€dangerousÐ PH Ðfor€liability€to€attach.€€Using€the€word€ð ðandðð€instead€of€ð ðorðð€increased€the€plaintiffððsÏburden,€which€required€reversal.€€òòId.óó€at€475.€€In€òòGorman€v.€Earhartóó,€876€S.W.2d€832Ð `X Ð(Tenn.€1994),€the€plaintiffððs€decedent€was€killed€when€her€vehicle€struck€theÏdefendantððs€John€Deere€crawler/loader,€which€is€used€to€load€logs€onto€trucks.€€TheÏcrawler€was€crossing€the€highway€when€it€was€struck,€and€the€jury€was€instructed€thatÏthe€Manual€of€Uniform€Traffic€Control€Devices€was€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñapplicable,ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€which€requires€aÏflagger€to€be€located€far€enough€in€advance€of€a€work€site€to€give€approaching€trafficÏtime€enough€to€reduce€speed€and€stop.€€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€manual€onlyÏapplied€to€public€authorities,€not€private€persons,€and€was€inapplicable€to€the€case.€ÏThe€jury€verdict€was€reversed€because€the€instruction€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñrelative€toñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€the€manual€went€toÏthe€heart€of€the€case€and€more€likely€influenced€the€juryððs€decision.€€òòId.óó€at€836„837.€€Ð ¨/ (( Ðà 4 àà Œ àAs€in€the€foregoing€cases,€the€instruction€here€went€to€the€heart€of€theÏcase€by€increasing€the€plaintiffsðð€burden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€liability,€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñby€directlyñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñÏsuggesting€that€the€OSHA€regulations€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñapplied€to€defendant.ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€€While€the€defendantÏmakes€the€argument€that€the€terms€of€the€statute€limit€the€presumption€to€warnings€andÏinstructions€for€use€because€it€limits€the€presumption€to€ð ðmatters€covered€by€theseÐ Ð9È22 Ðstandards,ðð€the€Court€did€not€define€the€term€ð ðmatters€covered€by€these€standardsðð€orÏotherwise€limit€the€statuteððs€application.€Based€on€this€record€and€the€jury€instructionsÏas€a€whole,€the€instruction€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€of€the€jury.€ÏAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€case€will€be€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiffs€argue€that€the€defendants€should€be€sanctioned€for€requestingÏthe€foregoing€instruction,€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.€11.€€We€find€this€issue€to€be€withoutÏmerit.Ìà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiffs€raise€as€error€the€Trial€Judgeððs€refusal€to€instruct€the€juryÏregarding€the€consumer€expectation€test.Ìà 4 àà Œ àTennessee€products€liability€law€is€codified€in€T.C.A.€ðð€29„28„101€òòetÐ PH Ðseqóó.€(1980).€€The€term€ð ðunreasonably€dangerousðð€meansÐ XP ÐÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àa€product€that€is€dangerous€to€an€extent€beyond€which€would€beÏcontemplated€by€the€ordinary€consumer€who€purchases€it,€withÏthe€ordinary€knowledge€common€to€the€community€as€to€itsÏcharacteristics,€or€that€the€product€because€of€its€dangerousÏcondition€would€not€be€put€on€the€market€by€a€reasonably€prudentÏmanufacturer€or€seller€assuming€that€he€knew€of€its€dangerousÏñ¦ñœñ¦ñcondition.€€Óv\ÓÓÓT.C.A.ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€ðð€29„28„102(8).€€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñÐ Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓÓTheñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€in€òòRay€v.€Bic€Corp.óó,€925€S.W.2d€527€(Tenn.€1996),Ð €%x Ðdetermined€that€the€definition€provides€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñtwoñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€distinct€tests€for€determining€whether€aÏproduct€is€unreasonably€dangerous:€the€consumer€expectation€test€and€the€prudentÏmanufacturer€test.€€òòId.óó€at€531.€€Ð ˜+$$ Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€Supreme€Court€in€that€case€observed,€as€to€this€test,€that€theÏconsumer€is€required€to€establish€what€an€ordinary€consumer€purchasing€the€productÏwould€expect,€and€is€applicable€to€products€about€which€the€ordinary€consumer€wouldÏhave€knowledge,€and€is€to€be€applied:€ð ðonly€to€those€products€in€which€ððevery€dayÏexperience€of€the€productððs€users€permits€a€conclusion.€.€.€.ðððð€òòCiting€Soule€v.€GeneralÐ À5¸.. ÐMotors,€Corp.óó,€8€Cal.€4th€548,€34€Cal.Rptr.2d€607,€617,€882€P.2d€298,€308€(1994).Ð È7À00 Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€defendant€insists€that€this€test€is€limited€to€what€it€describes€asÐ Ð9È22 Ðð ðordinary€consumer€productsðð.€€In€the€statute,€the€word€ð ðordinaryðð€modifies€consumerÏnot€the€product,€and€applies€to€the€customary€or€usual€consumer€of€the€product.€€TheÏð ðevery€day€experienceðð€of€the€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñusersñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€of€a€product€would€give€them€expectations€aboutÏthe€product.€€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñTennesseeñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€cases€have€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñheldñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€the€consumer€expectations€test€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñapplicable€to€aÏwide€variety€of€products.ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€€òòSee€e.g.,€Whaley€v.€Rheem€Mfg.€Co.,óó€900€S.W.2d€296€(Tenn.Ð (  ÐApp.€1995),€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñ(theñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€product€a€heat€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñpump);ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€òòGoode€v.€Tamko€Asphalt€Products,€Inc.,€óó€783Ð 0(  ÐS.W.2d€184€(Tenn.€1989),€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñ(theñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€test€applied€to€asphalt€roof€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñshingles);ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€òòGann€v.€IntððlÐ 80  ÐHarvester€Co.óó,€712€S.W.2d€100€(Tenn.€1986),€the€test€applied€to€an€InternationalÐ @8 ÐHarvester€Crawler€Tractor.€€òòAlso€see€Neal€v.€Boggsóó,€1997€WL€563221,€*2€(Tenn.€App.Ð H@ Ð1997),€òòquoting€Kellar€v.€Inductotherm€Corp.óó,€498€F.Supp.€172,€176€(E.D.€Tenn.Ð PH Ð1978),€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñ(testñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€applicable€to€the€J.I.€Case€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñuni„loader).ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñÌà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Court€is€required€to€instruct€the€jury€on€every€theory€of€theÏcase€that€is€raised€by€the€pleadings€and€supported€by€the€evidence.€€òòOwen€v.€ArcataÐ h` ÐGraphics/Kingsport€Press,óó€813€S.W.2d€442,€447€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€òòSpellmeyer€v.Ð p!h ÐTenn.€Farmers.€Mut.€Ins.€Coóó.,€879€S.W.2d€843,€846€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Here€theÐ x#p Ðplaintiffs€offered€evidence€of€the€expectations€of€the€users€of€the€multi„piece€rims€atÏTennessee€Waste€Movers,€and€evidence€that€these€users€did€not€expect€the€rims€toÏexplode€if€they€remained€intact€after€inflation€in€the€safety€cage.€€The€evidenceÏdemonstrates€that€the€individuals€who€service€and€mount€these€tires€were€aware€of€theÏcharacteristics€of€these€rim€assemblies€and€their€expected€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñperformance.ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñAs€theñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñòòBicóóÐ  -˜&& ÐCourt€notes€to€be€entitled€to€the€charge,€the€consumerñ¦ññ©ñœ×ƒ×ñ©ññ©ñ׃ ×ñ©ññ¦ññ¦ñ׃ ×ñ¦ñÝ ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€is€required€ð ðto€establish€whatÐ ¨/ (( Ðan€ordinary€consumer€purchasing€the€product€would€expectðð,€p.531.€ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñAccordingly,ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñweÏconclude€the€Trialñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€Judge€should€have€given€the€requested€charge€on€the€consumerÏexpectation€test.€€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñà ä àà < àÐ À5¸.. Ðà 4 àà Œ àPlaintiffsñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€insist€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€directing€a€verdict€inÏFirestoneððs€favor€on€plaintiffsðð€punitive€damage€claim.Ìà 4 àà Œ àIn€reviewing€a€motion€for€directed€verdict,€ð ðthe€trial€court€must€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€non„moving€party,€allowingÏall€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€disregarding€all€countervailingÏevidence.€€òòWasielewski€v.€K„Mart€Corp.óó,€891€S.W.2d€916,€919€(Tenn.App.€1994).€€AÐ 0(  Ðdirected€verdict€should€only€be€granted€in€cases€ð ðwhere€a€reasonable€mind€could€drawÏbut€one€conclusionðð.€€òòHolmes€v.€Wilsonóó,€551€S.W.2d€682€(Tenn.€1977).€€WhenÐ @8 Ðconsidering€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€on€punitive€damages,€a€trial€court€must€limitÏñ¦ñœñ¦ñconsideration€ofñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€the€evidence€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñin€light€of€thisñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€standard,€but€it€must€also€find€theÏevidence€to€be€clear€and€convincing.€€òòSee€Hodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,Ð XP Ð901€(Tenn.€1992);€òòWasielewskióó,€at€919.Ð `X Ðà 4 àà Œ àWhen€punitive€damages€are€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñsought,ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€the€court€shall€bifurcate€the€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñtrialÏupon€motion€of€the€defendant.ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€€ð ðDuring€the€first€phase,€the€fact€finder€shall€determineÏ(1)€liability€for,€and€the€amount€of,€compensatory€damages,€and€(2)€liability€forÏpunitive€damages€in€accordance€with€the€standards€.€.€.€If€the€fact€finder€finds€aÏdefendant€liable€for€punitive€damages,€the€amount€of€such€damages€shall€then€beÏdetermined€in€an€immediate,€separate€proceeding.ðð€€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñòòHodges,€óó901.ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€€Plaintiffs€argue€thatÐ )ˆ"" Ðthe€directed€verdict€was€inappropriate€because€they€had€not€yet€rested€on€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñpunitiveñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñÏdamages€liability,€but€Tennessee€law€is€clear€that€in€a€bifurcated€proceeding,Ïcompensatory€damages€and€liability€for€punitive€damages€are€determined€during€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñtheÏfirstñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€phase€of€trial,€and€the€amount€of€punitive€damages€is€determined€in€the€secondÏphase.€€The€issue€of€punitive€damage€liability€was€subject€to€defendantsðð€motion€whenÏplaintiff€rested.Ìà 4 àà Œ àHowever,€taking€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€plaintiffs,Ïreasonable€minds€could€differ€as€to€whether€the€plaintiffs€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñofferedñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€by€clear€andÐ Ð9È22 Ðconvincing€evidence€that€the€defendant€acted€in€a€reckless€or€fraudulent€manner€inÏcontinuing€to€manufacture€the€FL€rim.€€The€plaintiffs€proof€was€that€multi„piece€rimsÏare€dangerous,€and€that€the€defendant€has€known€of€these€dangers€for€decades,€yetÏcontinued€to€manufacture€this€product.€€The€plaintiffs€produced€documents€showingÏthat€the€defendant€promoted€its€single„piece€rim€and€tubeless€tire€as€a€safer€alternativeÏto€the€multi„piece€rim€and€tubed€tire.€€A€document€was€introduced€which€commentsÏthat€the€OSHA€standard€could€be€a€ð ðtool€the€industry€could€use€in€battling€the€ever„¼increasing€number€of€product€liability€cases,ðð€which€the€plaintiffs€interpret€asÏrevealing€that€Firestone€wanted€the€OSHA€standard€to€fight€liability€instead€of€toÏpromote€safety.€€While€this€œinterpretationñ¯ñ€on€the€latter€pointñ¯ñ›€is€tenuous,€reasonableÏminds€could€ñ¦ñœñ¦ñdiffer€on€œwhetherñ°ñ€all€of€ñ°ññ±ñ›€ñ±ñthe›€evidence€ñ£ñmeets€the€standardñ£ñ€on€the€issue€ofÏpunitive€damagesñ¤ñ.€€Wñ¤ññ¥ñ,›€and›€wñ¥ñeñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€conclude€the€issue€of€punitive€damages€should€have€beenÏpresented€to€the€triers€to€fact€for€determination.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€plaintiffs€have€raised€several€issues€as€to€other€portions€of€theÏñ¦ñœñ¦ñcharge€and€requested€charges,ñ¦ñ›ñ¦ñ€and€as€to€the€admissibility€of€evidence.€€We€haveÏreviewed€these€additional€issues€and€conclude€they€are€without€merit.Ìà 4 àà Œ àWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remand€for€a€new€trialÏand€assess€the€cost€to€the€appellee.ÌÓÓ€€€€€Ìà@‚‚+‚àòòˆà D àÐ œ,”%% Ðóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð  -˜&& Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.Ìñ§ñÌñ§ñCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€œJ.ñ¨ñÐ Ð9È22 Ðñ¨ñ›