ÿWPCú 7UB %T®Z 0t 0Å| 0\A 0 0r* 0œ D+) ÆT 0 0=§ 0ä AQqLÂn& 0r)U:›w@Õ4 0J) 0Ts 0^Ç D3% BX 0hu 0rÝ 0|O 0†Ë 0Q 1uá 0dVU *ºB)äDC  AKP›v~©vÓ'ô\  `*Times New RomanTTô' Í The Plaintiffs appeal the trial courts final judgment which up (Authorized User(0Authorized User .   h††ÿÿ:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ<5Tÿÿ.footerfooterÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜü!ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ>4°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>ÓP††ÿÿ8page numberpage numberÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔV!ÿÿ:footnote texfootnote textÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô`‰‰ÿÿ:footnote reffootnote referenceÔ€XXXÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ôôôÔÔW€ô\  `*Times New RomanTTWÔ(e2Ó$©©Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ôÞôôôÔÔ€ôÞôôôÞÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxdƒ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2Ó$££Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ôÞôôôÔÔ€ôÞôôôÞÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Ú  ÚÚ  Ú(e2Ó$¢¢Ý ƒä!ÝÔ€ôÞôôôÔÔ€ôÞôôôÞÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý   Cþÿ<< cÿÿC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT3|xÒ«ô\  `*Times New RomanTTôôCô\  PŽ6QôPô\  `*Times New RomanTTXXPô\  PŽ6QXP%ä2¼A`ArialTTomanTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP(Jä$¡¡Ô€ô~4ôôôÔÔ€ô~4ôôô~4ÔÓ  Ó+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular ¼D½U¾D¿DÀÁDÂÃÓ€ÏÒ§aö"V2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô""""'ÿÿdxd d26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô #$%&' ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd 2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òSeptember€08,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÓ ` Ü›XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€0ÔÔ€0XÔÑ7€ÞôôdÈXXdð7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌDAVID€NEAL€and€wife,à àà àà à)ÌLORI€NEAL,à àà àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àò ò)€€€Gibson€Circuit€No.€H„2709Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9612„CV„00305̜ـ ÙßR€342A1-j|]ù„` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌKEITH€BOGGS,€d/b/a€BOGGSà àà à)ÌLANDSCAPING€BACKHOE€&€DOZERà à)ÌSERVICE,€WILLIAM€O.€ð ðBILLðð€LILES,€€)Ìd/b/a€LILES€BROS.€&€SONS,€andà à)ÌJ.€I.€CASE,€INC.,€a€Tenneco€Company,)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€GIBSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€HUMBOLDT,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€DICK€JERMAN,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌò òLEWIS€L.€COBBó óÌò òJONATHAN€O.€STEENÌSPRAGINS,€BARNETT,€COBB€&€BUTLERÌó óJackson,€TennesseeÌœAttorneys›€for€AppellantÌÌò òJAMES€T.€RYAL,€JR.ÌADAMS,€RYAL€&€FLIPPIN,€ATTORNEYS„P.C.Ìó óHumboldt,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee,€Keith€Boggs,€d/b/a€BoggsÌLandscaping€Backhoe€&€Dozer€ServiceÌÌœò òCLINT€V.€BUTLER,€JR.ó ó›Ìœò òDALE€CONDER,€JR.ó ó›Ìœò òRAINEY,€KIZER,€BUTLER,€REVIERE€&€BELL,€P.L.C.ó ó›ÌœJackson,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Appellee,€William€O.€ð ðBillðð€Liles,€d/b/a€Liles€Bros.€&€SonsÌÌÌÌÌ›Ìò òAFFIRMEDÌÌœÌÌ›Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœò òALAN›€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHEWITT€P.€œTOMLIN›,€JR.,€Sr.€œJ.ó ó›à àœÌÑ7€þjXXdðôôdÈ7ÑÓÓà àIn›€this€products€liability€action,€Plaintiffs€David€and€Lori€Neal€appeal€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€entering€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€Defendants/Appellees€KeithÏBoggs,€d/b/a€Boggs€Landscaping,€Backhoe&€Dozer€Service,€and€WilliamO.€ð ðBillððÏLiles,€d/b/a€Liles€Bros.&€Sons.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafter€stated,€we€affirm€the€trialÏcourtððs€judgment.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€David€Neal€was€seriously€injured€when€a€J.I.€Case€Model€1845C€Uni„Loader€fell€on€Nealððs€leg€and€broke€his€ankle.€€œThe›€Uni„Loader€was€manufactured€byÏDefendant€J.I.€Case,€Inc.,€which€is€not€a€party€to€this€appeal.€œJ.I.›€Case€sold€the€Uni„Loader€to€Defendant/Appellee€Liles,€who€later€sold€it€to€Defendant/Appellee€Boggs.€ÏœBoggs›€then€leased€the€Uni„Loader€to€a€contractor,€for€whom€Neal€was€working€on€theÏday€he€was€injured.€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€Nealððs€injury,€Neal€and€his€coworkers€were€filling€a€trench€with€dirt.€ÏœOne›€coworker,€Gary€Guest,€operated€the€Uni„Loader,€which€he€used€to€transport€loadsÍof€dirt€to€the€trench.€€œThe›€workers€had€constructed€a€dirt€ramp€leading€into€the€trench.€ÏœGuest›€made€numerous€trips€in€which€he€filled€the€Uni„Loaderððs€bucket€with€dirt,€droveÏthe€Uni„Loader€down€the€dirt€ramp€into€the€trench,€and€dumped€the€bucket€load€of€dirt.€ÏœDuring›€this€process,€Neal€and€another€coworker€worked€in€the€trench€spreading€theÏdirt€which€had€been€dumped€by€the€Uni„Loader.€Ìà àÌà àOn€one€of€Guestððs€trips,€as€Guest€raised€the€Uni„Loaderððs€bucket€to€dumpÏanother€load€of€dirt,€the€Uni„Loader€suddenly€jerked€forward€and€fell€onto€Nealððs€leg.€ÏœAt›€the€time€of€the€accident,€the€Uni„Loader€was€on€level€ground€and€appeared€to€carryÏthe€usual€size€load€of€dirt.€Ìà àÌà àThe€Neals€subsequently€filed€this€products€liability€action€against€J.I.€Case,ÏBoggs,€and€Liles.€€œIn›€their€complaint,€the€Neals€alleged€that€the€Uni„Loader€wasÏdefective€or€unreasonably€dangerous€in€that€the€Uni„Loader€had€a€propensity€to€tipÏforward€during€normal€operation.€€œThe›€complaint€also€alleged€that€the€DefendantsÏfailed€to€adequately€warn€users€of€the€Uni„Loaderððs€propensity€to€tip€forward.€ÌÌà àAll€three€Defendants€moved€for€summary€judgment€and€filed€affidavits€inÏsupport€of€their€motions.€€œJ.I.›€Case,€the€Uni„Loaderððs€manufacturer,€submitted€theÏaffidavit€of€one€of€its€product€engineers,€GaryD.€Stromberg,€who€stated€that€theÏð ð1845C€uni„loader€was€not€defectively€designed€nor€was€it€dangerous€to€an€extentÏbeyond€that€which€would€be€[contemplated]€by€the€ordinary€user.ðð€€œDefendant›€Boggs,Ïthe€lessor€of€the€Uni„Loader,€filed€an€affidavit€in€which€he€asserted€that€he€had€no€priorÍknowledge€that€the€Uni„Loader€was€unsafe€or€unreasonably€dangerous€during€normalÏuse.€€œDefendant›€Liles,€the€seller€of€the€Uni„Loader,€filed€an€affidavit€in€which€he€madeÏthe€following€assertions:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àIndividuals€who€ordinarily€operate€equipment€suchÏas€the€J.I.€Case€model€1845C€uni„loader€are€aware€thatÏthese€machines€have€a€potential€for€tipping€over.Ìà àÌÓÓÓÓà8 àà8 àà àIt€is€commonly€known€among€the€ordinary€users€ofÏthe€J.I.€Case€model€1845C€uni„loader€that€these€machinesÏmay€tip€over€if€the€load€in€the€bucket€is€too€heavy,€if€theÏoperator€drives€the€machine€forward€down€an€incline€ratherÏthan€backing€down€an€incline,€etc.€œÌ›Ìœ›ÌÓÓà àIn€opposing€the€Defendantsðð€motions,€the€Neals€filed€the€affidavit€of€A.O.ÏWhite,Jr.,€a€registered€professional€engineer€and€an€expert€in€investigatingÏconstruction€accidents.€€œIn›€his€affidavit,€White€stated€that€the€Uni„Loader€ð ðtippedÏforward€while€being€unloaded€in€a€normal€mannerðð€and€that€the€Uni„Loader€proved€toÏbe€ð ðunstable€and€unsafe€in€normal€use,€which€indicated€an€unsafe€design€and/orÏmanufacture.ðð€€œWhite›€further€stated€that:Ìœ›ÓÓà àà8 àœ[N]o›€warning€decals€were€found€affixed€to€the€J.I.€CaseÏModel€1845C€Uniloader€nor€were€any€warnings€found€inÏthe€operatorððs€manual€which€was€furnished€with€theÏmachine€which€would€alert€persons€using€the€machine€orÏpersons€within€the€vicinity€of€where€the€machine€was€beingÏused€to€the€machineððs€unsafe€and€unreasonably€dangerousÏpropensity€to€tip€over€under€normal€operating€conditions.€œÌ›Ìœ›ÓÓà àÌà àIn€a€previous€deposition,€however,€Neal€admitted€to€having€knowledge€of€theÏUni„Loaderððs€propensity€to€tip€over.€€Prior€to€his€accident,€Neal€was€told€by€coworkers,Ïincluding€Guest,€that€the€Uni„Loader€had€ð ðtipped€over€on€somebody€before€out€there€atÍwork€before€[Neal]€started€working€out€there.ðð€€€Neal€was€not€certain€if€the€Uni„LoaderÏinvolved€in€the€earlier€accident€was€the€same€machine,€but€the€Uni„Loader€in€questionÏwas€the€only€machine€he€had€observed€on€the€job€site.€€€In€any€event,€NealÏacknowledged€that€he€had€a€general€awareness€of€the€propensity€of€the€Uni„LoaderÏand€similar€machines€to€tip€over.€€à àÌà àIn€its€subsequent€order,€the€trial€court€granted€Boggsðð€and€Lilesðð€motions€forÏsummary€judgment€but€denied€the€motion€of€J.I.€Case.€€œPursuant›€to€rule54.02€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€the€trial€court€declared€the€order€to€be€a€finalÏjudgment€as€to€Boggs€and€Liles,€and€this€appeal€followed.€€Ìà àÌà àIn€order€to€prevail€in€a€products€liability€action,€a€plaintiff€must€prove€that€theÏproduct€causing€his€injury€was€either€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous€as€thoseÏconcepts€are€defined€in€the€Tennessee€Products€Liability€Act.€€òòWhaleyv.€Rheem€Mfg.ÏCo.óó,€900€S.W.2d€296,€299€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€The€Act€defines€ð ðdefective€conditionðð€asÏð ða€condition€of€a€product€that€renders€it€unsafe€for€normal€or€anticipatable€handling€andÏconsumption.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð29„28„102(2)€(1980).€€The€Act€defines€ð ðunreasonablyÏdangerousðð€to€mean€ð ðthat€a€product€is€dangerous€to€an€extent€beyond€that€whichÏwould€be€contemplated€by€the€ordinary€consumer€who€purchases€it,€with€the€ordinaryÏknowledge€common€to€the€community€as€to€its€characteristics.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð29„28„102(8)Ï(1980).Ìà àÌà àCourts€applying€the€Act€have€recognized€that€the€foregoing€definitions€codify€theÏð ðconsumer€expectation€testðð€as€the€basis€for€assessing€products€liability€in€Tennessee.€ÍòòRay€ex€rel.€Holmanv.€BIC€Corp.óó,€925€S.W.2d€527,€529€(Tenn.€1996);€òòWhaleyv.€RheemÏMfg.óó,€900€S.W.2d€at€299.€€The€consumer€expectation€test€generally€may€be€defined€asÏð ðwhether€the€productððs€condition€poses€a€danger€beyond€that€expected€by€an€ordinaryÏconsumer€with€reasonable€knowledge.ðð€€òòRay€ex€rel.€Holmanv.€BICóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€529.€ÏThe€test€focuses€on€ð ðwhat€is€anticipated€or€contemplated€by€the€ordinary€consumer.ðð€ÏòòHiggsv.€General€Motors€Corp.óó,€655€F.€Supp.€22,€26€(E.D.€Tenn.€1985),€òòaffððdóó,€815€F.2dÏ80€(6th€Cir.€1987).€€A€product€is€not€defective€and€unreasonably€dangerous€ð ðunless€theÏproduct€is€dangerous€beyond€a€plaintiffððs€contemplation€as€a€user€possessing€ordinaryÏknowledge€of€the€productððs€characteristics.ðð€€òòKellarv.€Inductotherm€Corp.óó,€498€F.€Supp.Ï172,€176€(E.D.€Tenn.€1978)€(citing€òòOrfieldv.€International€Harvester€Co.óó,€535€F.2d€959,Ï964€(6th€Cir.€1976)),€òòaffððdóó,€633€F.2d€216€(6th€Cir.€1980);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòWyattv.€WinnebagoÏIndus.óó,€566€S.W.2d€276,€280€(Tenn.€App.€1977)€(noting€that€productððs€dangerousÏcondition€must€be€one€not€contemplated€by€ultimate€user).€€œStated›€another€way,€aÏproduct€is€not€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous€if€it€performs€in€the€mannerÏexpected€and€if€the€ordinary€consumer€is€capable€of€contemplating€the€danger€of€theÏproductððs€characteristics.€€òòCurtisv.€Universal€Match€Corp.óó,€778€F.€Supp.€1421,€1428Ï(E.D.€Tenn.€1991),€òòaffððdóó,€966€F.2d€1451€(6th€Cir.€1992).€Ìà àÌà àUnder€the€consumer€expectation€test,€ð ðthe€issue€of€whether€the€particularÏdanger€posed€by€a€product€is€beyond€the€expectation€of€an€ordinary€consumer€isÏnormally€to€be€determined€by€a€jury.ðð€€òòCurtisv.€Universal€Matchóó,€778€F.€Supp.€at€1427;Ïòòsee€alsoóó€òòYoungv.€Reliance€Elec.€Co.óó,€584€S.W.2d€663,€668€(Tenn.€App.€1979)€(notingÏthat€whether€product€is€in€defective€condition€or€unreasonably€dangerous€to€userÍordinarily€is€question€for€trier€of€fact).€€œSummary›€judgment€is€proper,€however,€if€theÏundisputed€evidence€demonstrates€that€ð ðthe€danger€is€obvious€to€the€ordinaryÏœconsumer.ðð€€òòCurtisv.€Universal€Matchóó,€778€F.€Supp.€at€1427.›€€œThus,›€a€defendant€mayÏbe€entitled€to€summary€judgment€if€he€can€demonstrate€that€the€dangers€of€the€productÏin€question€are€such€common€knowledge€that€objectively€the€product€cannot€beÏconsidered€unreasonably€dangerous.€€òòIdóó.€€œConversely,›€when€confronted€with€aÏproperly€supported€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€plaintiff€may€be€required€toÏpresent€evidence€demonstrating€the€ordinary€consumerððs€lack€of€appreciation€for€theÏdangers€of€the€product.€€òòIdóó.€at€1430;€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòGannv.€International€Harvester€Co.óó,€712ÏS.W.2d€100,€105€(Tenn.€1986)€(wherein€plaintiff€presented€evidence€that€ordinaryÏconsumer€lacked€knowledge€that€tractor€had€propensity€to€roll€over€on€relatively€flatÏground).€Ìà àÌà àApplying€the€foregoing€standard,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏgranted€œBoggsðð€and€Lilesðð›€motions€for€summary€judgment€in€this€case.€€In€moving€forÏsummary€judgment,€the€Defendants€presented€evidence€that€the€Uni„Loader€was€notÏð ðdangerous€to€an€extent€beyond€that€which€would€be€[contemplated]€by€the€ordinaryÏuser.ðð€œThe›€undisputed€evidence€demonstrated€that€individuals€ð ðwho€ordinarily€operateÏequipment€such€as€the€J.I.€Case€model€1845C€uni„loader€are€aware€that€theseÏmachines€have€a€potential€for€tipping€over.ðð€€œRather›€than€contradicting€this€evidence,ÏNealððs€own€testimony€reveals€that€he€was€aware€of€the€Uni„Loaderððs€propensity€to€tipÏover.€œÌ›ÓÓÌà àÌÓÓà àThis€case€is€œanalogous›€to€òòOrfieldv.€International€Harvester€Co.óó,€535€F.2d€959Ï(6th€Cir.€1976),€in€which€the€plaintiff€sued€for€injuries€he€received€in€a€bulldozerÏaccident.€€The€plaintiff,€who€was€using€the€bulldozer€to€windrow€trees€and€brush,€wasÏstruck€in€the€chest€by€a€fifty„foot„long€black€oak€tree.€€òòIdóó.€at€959„60.€€The€plaintiff€suedÏboth€the€manufacturer€and€the€seller€of€the€bulldozer,€contending€that€the€bulldozerÏwas€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous€in€that€it€was€not€equipped€with€anÏoverhead€protective€canopy.€€òòIdóó.€at€960.€€The€plaintiffððs€testimony€at€trial,€however,Ïrevealed€that€the€plaintiff€was€aware€of€the€danger€of€windrowing€trees€and€brush€withÏa€bulldozer€that€had€no€canopy€guard.€€òòIdóó.€€Based€on€this€testimony,€the€trial€courtÏgranted€the€defendantsðð€motion€for€directed€verdict€at€the€close€of€the€plaintiffððs€case.€ÏThe€appellate€court€affirmed,€despite€testimony€by€the€plaintiffððs€safety€engineer€that,€inÏhis€opinion,€the€bulldozer€was€defective€and€unreasonably€dangerous.€€The€courtÏreasoned€œthat›ÌÓÓà àà8 àœ[T]he›€plaintiffððs€own€testimony€demonstrates€that€while€theÏbulldozer€was€dangerous€to€operate€without€a€canopyÏguard,€it€was€not€dangerous€to€an€extent€beyond€hisÏknowledge€as€an€ordinary€consumer.€€From€the€undisputedÏevidence,€the€plaintiff€had€full€knowledge€of€the€machineððsÏcharacteristics€as€manufactured€and€delivered;€he€was€fullyÏaware€of€the€dangers€which€would€be€incurred€inÏconducting€the€windrowing€operations€without€the€canopyÏguard;€and€he€was€also€aware€that€while€the€machine€asÏmanufactured€and€delivered€may€have€been€dangerous,€itÏwas€not€dangerous€beyond€his€own€Ô&  Ôcontemplation€as€aÏuser€possessing€ordinary€knowledge€of€its€œcharacteristics.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.›€at€964€(footnote€omitted).€œÔ'  ÔÌ›ÓÓÌÌÓÓà àœOn€the€other€hand,€we›€œfind€the€present›€case€œto€be›€distinguishable€from€òòGannv.ÏInternational€œHarvester€Co.óó,›€712€S.W.2d€100€(Tenn.€1986),€in€which€the€plaintiff€sued€aÏmanufacturer€for€injuries€he€sustained€when€a€tractor€rolled€œover€while€on€relatively€flatÏground.›€€œòòGannóó€was€similar€to€the€present€case€in€that€the€determinative€issue€was€theÏuserððs€knowledge€of€the€tractorððs€propensity€to€turn€over€while€in€operation.€€The›€trialÏcourt€directed€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€manufacturer€based€on€evidence€that€the€œdangerÏof€serious€injury€from€roll„overs€and€the€danger›€of€roll„overs€on€steep€slopes€œwere›Ïknown€by€the€ordinary€user€and€by€the€plaintiff.€€òòIdóó.€at€105.€€œThe€court€of€appealsÏaffirmed,€but€the€supreme€court€reversed€based€on€evidence€presented€by€the€plaintiffÏwhich€contradicted€the€defendantððs€proof€concerning€the€ordinary€userððs€knowledge€ofÏthe€dangers€of€the€product.€€Specifically,€the€plaintiff€presented€proof€that€the€ordinaryÏconsumer€lacked€knowledge€that€roll„overs€occurred€on€relatively€flat€ground€and€notÏjust€on€steep€slopes.€€òòIdóó.€€In€reversing€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€and€the€court€ofÏappeals,€the€supreme€court€concluded€that€this€conflict€in€the€evidence€created€anÏissue€for€the€juryððs€resolution.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€evidence€showed€that€Neal€had€a€general€awareness€ofÏthe€Uni„Loaderððs€propensity€to€tip€over.€€Unlike€the€plaintiff€in€òòGannóó,€however,€theÏNeals€presented€no€evidence€that€the€ordinary€userððs€or€Nealððs›€knowledge€of€œsuch›Ïœpropensity€was›€limited€to€certain€situations.€€In€arguing€that€summary€judgment€wasÏimprovidently€granted,€the€Neals€focus€on€the€additional€statement€made€in€DefendantÏLilesðð€affidavit€to€the€effect€that€ordinary€users€of€the€Uni„Loader€commonly€know€thatÏthe€machine€may€tip€over€under€certain€operating€conditions,€such€as€ð ðif€the€load€in€theÍbucket€is€too€heavy,€if€the€operator€drives€the€machine€forward€down€an€incline€ratherÏthan€backing€down€an€incline,€etc.ðð€€œThe›€Plaintiffs€point€out€that€neither€of€theseÏoperating€conditions€œwas›€present€in€this€œcase.€€We›€note,€however,€that€the€operatingÏconditions€mentioned€by€Liles€œdid›€not€purport€to€be€an€exclusive€list€of€the€situationsÏunder€which€the€Uni„Loader€may€tip€over,€as€evidenced€by€Lilesðð€use€of€the€term€ð ðetc.ððÏat€the€end€of€the€list.€€œMoreover,€Nealððs€own€testimony€concerning€his€knowledge€of€theÏUni„Loaderððs€propensity€to€tip€over€did€not€limit€such€knowledge€to€certain€operatingÏconditions.€ÌÌà àIn›€our€view,€the€important€consideration€in€this€case€is€œthe›€undisputed€evidenceÏœdemonstrating›€that€ordinary€users€of€the€product,€including€Neal,€have€a€generalÏawareness€and€appreciation€œof›€the€Uni„Loaderððs€propensity€to€tip€over€while€inÏoperation.€€As€explained€by€one€court€in€applying€the€Act,ÌÓÓà àà8 àœThere›€is€no€requirement...€that€before€a€manufacturer€isÏinsulated€from€liability,€a€plaintiff€must€contemplate€theÏprecise€events€which€ultimately€lead€to€the€harm.€€It€isÏsufficient€that€a€plaintiff€appreciate€the€kind€of€accidentÏwhich€can€occur€from€the€use€of€the€product€in€its€allegedlyÏdefective€condition.€€Nor€is€it€necessary€that€the€danger€beÏfully€contemplated€at€every€moment.ÌÓÓÓӜ̛ÓÓÌà àœòòKellar›v.€Inductothermóó,€498€F.€Supp.€at€176€(citing€òòOrfieldv.€InternationalÏHarvesteróó,€535€F.2d€at€œ965„66)).€The›€plaintiff€need€have€only€a€ð ðgeneral€œappreciationðð›Ïof€the€œproductððs€danger.›€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àœFurther,€in›€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€we€are€œmindful›€œthatÌ›ÓÓà8 àà8 àA€manufacturer€is€not€an€insurer€of€its€product.€€It€is€notÏrequired€that€the€design€be€perfect,€or€render€the€productÏaccident€proof€or€incapable€of€causing€œinjury.ÌÌ›ÓÓÌœòòCurtis›v.€Universal€Matchóó,€778€F.€Supp.€at€1430;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòEllithorpev.€Ford€Motor€Co.óó,Ï503€S.W.2d€516,€519€(Tenn.€1973)€(noting€that€manufacturer€is€not€required€to€buildÏaccident„proof€products).€Ìà àÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxedÏto€the€Plaintiffs,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.Ô€0ôÔÔ€ÔÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÔ€0ÔÔ€0XÔHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.›