ÿWPCA! b#Ál %-^ 3 0ˆ?UNÇw4 z-Ò§y ˆ mŠ 04¡ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ' 0Dí N1 3 E; 04= 0Jq 0T» 0^ 0hm 0rÕ 0|G 0†Ã 0I 1uÙ 0dNU >²U*ð<ÙVb/v~7vÓµ 0ëˆ Bs 0X D5è D- 0KJ AS•Æè 0¤® 0DR A«– ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»p3+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÑB+¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ& ÿÿ$ððà0 àLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó &c$"ð"ðà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 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`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€)ôÔÔ_Ô€€See,€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€20„1„119.Ì ÏÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€)ôÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€€Soon€after€the€accident,€Carlen€Motors€made€the€truck€available€on€two€occasions€at€the€defendantððsÏrequest€for€inspection€by€his€expert.€€The€accident€occurred€in€December€1998.€€The€truck€was€a€1999€model.Ì- ù-PtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{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  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò(|G2d $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZU»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî]ò»»Ô d(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰Z$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZU»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÑ#€++¼d#ÑÑ#€++¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ8€ ÙXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ àÔ€)îÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÔ€)¼ÔÌÓ  ÓAugust€9,€2001€SessionÌÔ€)XÔÌò òÔ€)¼ÔWALTER€W.€Ô_ÔCARLENÔ_Ô,€SR.,€òòet€al.óó€v.€RONALD€E.€JACKSONÌÔ€)XÔó óÌÌò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Putnam€CountyÌNo.€99J0411€€€€€€John€A.€Ô_ÔTurnbullÔ_Ô,€JudgeÌÌÌà@ àßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÌÌà@ àNo.€M2000„02564„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€19,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÌó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€asserted€a€comparative€fault€defense€to€a€tort€claim€against€him€arising€from€hisÏoperation€of€a€truck.€€He€attributed€fault€to€General€Motors€Corporation€and€Ô_ÔCarlenÔ_Ô€Motors€Inc.€theÏmanufacturer€and€prospective€seller,€respectively,€of€the€truck.€€The€defendant€did€not€respondÏtimely€to€a€request€for€admission€and€summary€judgment€was€entered€that€the€defendant€could€notÏassert€the€affirmative€defense€attributing€fault€to€General€Motors€and€Ô_ÔCarlenÔ_Ô€Motors€Inc.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€andÏòòPatricia€J.€Cottrellóó,€Ô_ÔJ.J.Ô_Ô,€joined.ÌÌEllis€A.€Sharp€and€Jon€M.€Cope,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ronald€E.€Jackson.ÌÌJ.€Ford€Little€and€Luis€C.€€Ô_ÔBustamanteÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Walter€W.€Ô_ÔCarlenÔ_Ô,ÏSr.€and€Linda€Ô_ÔCarlenÔ_Ô.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÌÌò òI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àPlaintiff€Walter€Ô_ÔCarlenÔ_Ô€was€a€passenger€in€a€Chevrolet€pickup€truck€driven€by€a€prospectiveÏpurchaser,€Ronald€E.€Jackson,€when€the€right€front€wheel€left€the€pavement,€apparently€causing€theÏdriver€to€oversteer€after€the€truck€came€back€on€the€pavement€and€looped€before€striking€a€tree.€ÏBoth€the€passenger€and€driver€were€seriously€injured.€€Passenger€sued€the€driver,€whose€answer,Ïupon€information€and€belief,€attributed€fault€to€General€Motors€Corporation€[Ô_ÔGMCÔ_Ô],€theÏmanufacturer€of€the€truck,€and€to€Ô_ÔCarlenÔ_Ô€Motors,€Inc.,€the€local€dealer.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€resolved€to€determine€the€basis€for€the€affirmative€defense€of€a€defectiveÏproduct€and€served€defendant€with€interrogatories€and€requests€for€admissions€seeking€theÏdisclosure€Ô_Ôof€the€information€upon€which€the€affirmative€defense€was€based,€since€they€were€awareÏof€no€facts€which€would€provide€them€a€reasonable€basis€for€asserting€claims€against€GMC€andÏCarlen€Motors,€Inc.€€The€plaintiffs€were€allowed€ninety€(90)€days€to€amend€their€complaint€to€assertÏsuch€claims.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àOn€February€23,€2000,€the€defendant€was€served€with€plaintiffsðð€First€Set€of€InterrogatoriesÏand€Request€for€Production€of€Documents.€€One€of€the€Interrogatories€required€the€defendant€toÏð ðstate€the€facts€upon€which€you€rely€for€each€affirmative€defense€in€your€answer.ðð€€AnotherÏInterrogatory,€number€11,€was€akin,€since€it€required€the€defendant€to€reveal€the€facts€or€evidenceÏupon€which€any€liability€claim€against€any€entity€might€be€asserted.€€A€copy€of€any€documents€uponÏwhich€the€affirmative€defense€was€based€was€required.ÌÌà àOn€the€same€day,€February€23,€2000,€the€defendant€was€served€with€the€plaintiffsðð€SecondÏSet€of€Interrogatories€and€Request€for€Production€of€Documents.€€The€plaintiffs€also€served€3ÏRequests€for€Admissions:€(1)€Admit€that€Carlen€Motors€is€not€at€fault€for€the€accident,€(2)€AdmitÏthat€GMC€is€not€at€fault,€(3)€Admit€that€the€defendant€has€no€evidence€of€any€defect€in€the€truck.ÌÌà àResponses€were€due€by€April€25,€2000,€after€an€agreed€extension.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€did€not€respond,€and€the€plaintiffs€filed€their€motion€on€June€6,€2000,€for€aÏpartial€summary€judgment€respecting€the€affirmative€defense€that€had€been€asserted€on€informationÏand€belief.€€The€motion€was€filed€forty€days€after€the€responses€were€due.€€We€reproduce€part€of€theÏOrder€entered€by€the€trial€judge,€as€pertinent€here:ÌÌà8 àPlaintiffsðð€Motion€for€Partial€Summary€Judgment€is€hereby€granted€as€to€theÏDefendantððs€affirmative€defense€claim€regarding€comparative€fault€of€GeneralÏMotors€and€Carlen€Motors.€€Therefore,€the€Defendant€cannot€assert€as€anÏaffirmative€defense€claim,€comparative€fault€on€General€Motors,€the€manufacturer€ofÏthe€automobile€which€is€the€subject€matter€of€this€litigation€and€Carlen€Motors,€theÏcar€dealer.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€finds€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€anyÏmaterial€fact€regarding€this€affirmative€defense€claim€pursuant€to€Rule€56€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€appeals,€and€presents€for€review€the€propriety€of€this€judgment.€€Our€reviewÏis€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€since€this€issue€is€one€of€law.€€ò òòòFoley€v.ÏSt.€Thomas€Hospitalóóó ó,€906€S.W.2d€448€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€filed€a€response€to€the€Requests€for€Admission€on€May€12,€2000,€whichÏgenerally€denied€the€requests.€€He€responded€to€the€request€for€production€by€stating€ð ð[t]hisÏdefendant€will€answer€this€Interrogatory€after€the€inspection€of€the€vehicle€which€is€set€for€June€5,Ï2000.ðð× ƒ- ××  ×€€The€trial€judge€aptly€observed€that€a€comparative€fault€defense€required€thoughtfulÏconsideration,€since€a€plaintiff€has€a€statutory€window€of€ninety€(90)€days€after€revelation€to€ð ðbringÏthat€party€in.ðð€€The€trial€judge€further€observed:ÌÌà8 àThe€fact€that€as€of€the€end€of€that€ninety€(90)€days€you€have€not€come€up€with€anyÏevidence€and€not€even€responded€to€the€request€for€admissions,€òòit€puts€them€in€aÏcompletely€untenable€position.€€They€are€in€a€position€right€now€that€they€could€notÏbring€General€Motors€into€this€lawsuitóó.€ÌÌCounsel€for€the€defendant€responded€that€the€plaintiffs€could€have€amended€the€complaint€andÏbrought€General€Motors€into€the€case€by€alleging€a€defect€ð ðwhether€there€was€or€was€not€a€defect,ððÏand€thereby€would€have€eliminated€the€looming€prejudice.ÌÌà àIn€the€last€analysis,€the€defendant€had€no€competent€evidence€of€a€defect.€€He€was€attemptingÏto€show€that€the€vehicle€had€been€the€subject€of€a€recall,€but€the€evidence€revealed€that€the€recallÏinvolved€an€entirely€different€vehicle.€€The€defendant€adduced€statements€from€a€witness€about€theÏhandling€characteristics€of€the€vehicle,€who€later€conceded€that€he€was€mistaken€and€found€nothingÏwrong€with€the€truck.€€This€witness,€David€Dyer,€offered€nothing€of€value€to€the€defendant.€€It€wasÏapparently€through€a€misunderstanding€of€a€casual€remark€made€by€Mr.€Dyer€that€promptedÏcounsel€to€state€to€the€court€that€ð ðquite€frankly€we€heard€some€rumors€that€someone€had€tested€[sic]Ïdriven€this€€vehicle€a€day€or€two€days€before€and€had€serious€problems€with€the€drivingÏmechanism.ðð€€It€developed€that€Mr.€Dyer€found€nothing€wrong€with€the€driving€mechanism.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€attempted€to€establish€a€genuine€issue€of€a€material€fact€by€the€assertion€of€aÏclaim€for€spoilation€of€evidence€through€the€affidavit€testimony€of€Tyler€Kress.€€Suffice€to€say€thatÏMr.€Kress€does€not€identify€any€defect€in€the€vehicle,€and€the€steering€problems€and€the€recall€whichÏhe€references,€do€not€relate€to€the€subject€vehicle.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€CarlenÏMotors€conducted€any€destructive€testing€of€the€vehicle.€€The€trial€judge€found€ð ð€I€donððt€seeÏanything€right€now€that€would€create€the€grounds€that€would€allow€me€to€hold€that€spoilation€hasÏtaken€place.ððÌÌà àRule€56.04€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides:ÌÌà8 àà8 àSubject€to€the€moving€partyððs€compliance€with€Rule€56.03,€theÏjudgment€sought€shall€be€rendered€forthwith€if€the€pleadings,Ïdepositions,€answers€to€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,Ïtogether€with€the€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€no€genuineÏissue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€aÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€where:€(1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€materialÏfacts€relevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion.€€òòò òByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210Ï(Tenn.€1993);€òòsee€also,€ò òAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Companyó óóó,€857€S.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€Once€the€movant€has€properly€supported€its€summary€judgment€motion,€ð ðthe€burden€ofÏproduction€of€evidence€shifts€to€the€non„moving€party€to€produce€evidence€which€would€establish€aÏgenuine€factual€dispute.ðð€€òòò òBrown€v.€J.€C.€Penney€Life€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€861€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1992).€€The€Court€in€òòò òByrdó óóó€further€explained€the€rule€by€stating:ÌÌà8 àà8 àWhen€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€a€properlyÏsupported€motion,€the€burden€then€shifts€to€the€nonmoving€party€toÏset€forth€specific€facts,€not€legal€conclusions,€by€using€affidavits€orÏthe€discovery€materials€listed€in€Rule€56.03,€establishing€that€thereÏare€indeed€disputed,€material€facts€creating€a€genuine€issue€that€needsÏto€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact€and€that€a€trial€is€thereforeÏnecessary.€€The€nonmoving€party€may€not€rely€upon€the€allegationsÏor€denials€of€his€pleadings€in€carrying€out€this€burden€as€mandatedÏby€Rule€56.05.ÌÌà àThe€record€reveals€that€the€defendant€had€no€basis€for€asserting€fault€against€GeneralÏMotors€and€Carlen€Motors,€Inc.,€and€therefore€had€no€basis€for€the€affirmative€defense.€ÍConsequently,€the€plaintiffs€did€not€have€a€proper€factual€or€legal€basis€for€amending€theirÏComplaint€to€assert€a€claim€against€non„parties€General€Motors€and€Carlen€Motors,€Inc.ÌÌà àRule€36.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€requires€that:€ÌÌà8 àà8 àEach€matter€of€which€an€admission€is€requested€shall€be€separatelyÏset€forth.€€The€matter€is€admitted€unless,€within€30€days€after€serviceÏof€the€request,€or€within€such€shorter€or€longer€time€as€the€court€mayÏallow,€the€party€to€whom€the€request€is€directed€serves€upon€the€partyÏrequesting€the€admission€a€written€answer€or€objection€addressed€toÏthe€matter,€signed€by€the€party€or€by€the€partyððs€attorney.€.€.€€ÌÌThe€effect€of€an€admission€is€provided€for€in€Rule€36.02:€ð ð[a]ny€matter€admitted€under€this€rule€isÏconclusively€established€unless€the€court€on€motion€permits€withdrawal€or€amendment€of€theÏadmission.ððÌÌà àIn€òòò òTennessee€Depððt€of€Human€Services€v.€Barbeeóóó ó,€714€S.W.2d€266€(Tenn.€1986),€theÏSupreme€Court€opined:ÌÌà8 àà8 àRule€36€is€a€useful€tool€in€the€preparation€of€a€lawsuit,€for€it€providesÏa€procedure€by€which€a€party€may€request€another€party€to€admit€theÏtruth€of€any€matters€within€the€scope€of€Rule€26.02,€T.R.C.P.€.€.€.ÏUnanswered€requests€for€admission€are€deemed€admitted€and€theÏmatter€requested€is€conclusively€established€for€the€purpose€of€theÏpending€case.€€The€admission€is€comparable€to€an€admission€inÏpleadings€or€a€stipulation€drafted€by€counsel€for€use€at€trial.ÌÌà àIn€ò òòòNeely€v.€Velsicol€Chemical€Corp.,óóó ó€906€S.W.2d€915€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995),€the€courtÏgranted€summary€judgment€to€defendant€arising€from€plaintiffððs€failure€to€respond€to€requests€forÏadmission€which€the€court€recognized€resulted€in€plaintiff€admitting€facts€sufficient€to€establish€thatÏthe€manufacturer€was€not€liable.€€In€reaching€its€decision,€the€court€stated€that€ÌÌà8 àà8 à[A]n€admission€under€Rule€36,€unlike€an€evidentiary€admission,Ïððconcludes€the€matter€and€avoids€any€need€for€proofðð€.€.€.€Thus,€noÏproof€is€necessary€to€establish€a€fact€admitted,€nor€should€evidenceÏbe€allowed€to€refute€the€admission.€ÌÌà àLikewise,€in€òòò òPorter€v.€Meltonóóó ó,€1992€WL€29821€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€we€ruled€that€theÏð ðtrial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€[plaintiffððs]€Motion€to€Rely€Upon€Requests€forÏAdmissions,ðð€after€defendant€failed€to€respond€to€the€set€of€requests€in€accordance€with€Rule€36.ÌÌà àFinally,€we€think€that€the€belated€responses€to€the€requests€for€admission€essentially€revealÏthat€the€defendant€had€no€basis€for€asserting€the€affirmative€defense.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellant,€Ronald€E.€Jackson.ÌÌ€ÌÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€INMAN,€SENIOR€JUDGE