WPC7N  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\8^8 0J: 0TN: 0^: 0h; 0rh;w@; 0|< 0@< D3< 0 = 0= 1u> 0d>U6>B).?DCW? AM?U*?@t,A^BCCv~AEvF AOLL 0DM D/M BNV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dڃ"$(G.2$ FT!   ՕXX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKWIERSEMACamryFortonCanonieKerley S.W.McHoneRishtonGoodeTamkoHolmanBridgestone BABBVONDALAUGHLIN TCPA2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  D D?eӀ2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  ("$    GGGG'dxd2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  OPQSTV[\ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dffff7Border 1ddWgC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#e  ii   YYY FILEDiX December15,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.iAppellateCourtClerk  j F!  #d#e  I$e         ThePlaintifffiledanoticeofvoluntarydismissalastotheDefendantPhyllisMarieWoods,whowasalsosued,andanorderpursuanttheretowasenteredJune16,1997. T F!#d#e  I$e         TheDefendantsfiledamotiontopreventanydestructivetestingofthetiresbutthetiresandcarhadalreadybeendestroyedbytheChestnutStreetGarage. 9 F!#d#e  I$e         ThefronttiresthatwerereplacedonMr.HuntsautomobileweredisposedofbyTireAmericainthenormalcourseofbusiness.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva WC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . e    ћ7LXXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  f u` ќRhjgA1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONROBERTHUNT@ @ ) KNOXCOUNTY @ ) 03A019706CV00209 PlaintiffAppellant   @ )@ )@ ) v.   @ ) HON. HAROLDWIMBERLY,̀@ ) JUDGE@ ) @ TIREAMERICA,INC.,@ )BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE,INC.) @ ) DefendantsAppellees@ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDEDHARRYWIERSEMA,JR.,OFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTDENNISL.BABB andVONDAM.LAUGHLINOFKNOXVILLEFORTIREAMERICA,INC.DOUGLASL.DUTTONOFKNOXVILLEFORBRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE,INC.    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  RobertHuntappealsthedismissalofhissuitagainstTireAmerica,Inc.( TireAmerica),andBridgestone/Firestone,Inc.,bysummaryjudgment. k   ׀ThesuitsoughtdamagesforpersonalinjuriesandvehicledamagesagainsttheDefendantsbaseduponbreachofwarrantiesofmerchantabilityandfitnessforpurpose,failuretowarn,andviolationoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,Title47,Chapter18,T.C.A.  OnDecember27,1992,Mr.HuntpurchasedtwoBridgestoneSE402tires,size185SR13,andhadtheminstalledonthefrontofhis1985ToyotaCamry.ThetireswerepurchasedfromandinstalledbyTireAmerica.Mr.Huntdidnotrequestacertainbrandnameortypeoftire.TheonlyrequestbyMr.HuntwasforTireAmericato puttwotiresonthecarthatwerethesameastheonesthatwereonthereandtakethetwobestonesandputthemintherear.AtthetimeMr.Huntpurchasedthenewtireshewasunawareofthetractionratingonthetiresthatwerealreadyonhiscar.Heonlyknewthatallthetiresonhiscarhadthesametreadpatternandwereofthesameheightandwidth.  NodiscussionevertookplacebetweenMr.HuntandEdwardForton,theTireAmericasalesman,regardinganysortoftirerating.TheonlyrepresentationsmadebyMr.FortonregardingthenewtiresplacedonMr.Huntscar,werethepriceofthetiresandthatthenewtireswerethesamesizeasthoseremainingonthecar.TireAmericadidhavetiredisplaysintheirstorebutMr.Huntdidnotreviewtheinformationonthedisplays.ThenewtiresinstalledonMr.HuntscarweretractionBratedtires.  OnApril21,1997,Mr.Huntwasinvolvedinanautomobileaccidentwhiledrivinghis1985ToyotaCamryonHarrisRoadinKnoxCounty.TheroadwaswetfromarecentrainandMr.Huntscarslidintoanotherautomobilethatpulledoutinfrontofhim.BeforethisaccidentMr.Hunthadnotnoticedadifferenceinperformancebetweenthenewtiresandthetiresthatwerereplaced.ExperttestimonyconcludedthathadthetiresonthefrontofMr.HuntscarbeentractionAtheautomobilewouldhavestoppedsoonerandeitheravoidedtheaccidentorresultedinalessseverecollision.  AftertheaccidentMr.Huntvisitedthejunkyardwherehiscarwasbeingstored,andontheadviceofcounselidentifiedthetractionratingsofthenewandoldtiresonhiscar.Mr.Huntnotedthatthenewtires,purchasedfromTireAmerica,weretractionBtiresandtheoldtiresleftonthecarweretractionAtires. l   ׀However,Mr.Hunthasnoproofofthetractionratingonthetiresthatwereremovedwhenthenewtireswereinstalled. m     Thefollowingissues,whichwerestate,arepresentedbyMr.Huntonappeal: I.WhethertheTrialCourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmentinviolationoftheTennesseeSummaryJudgmentstandard. II.WhetherthePlaintiffhasprovenaviableclaimundertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,T.C.A.4718101,etseq. III.WhethertheDefendantsviolatedtheWarrantiesofMerchantabilityandFitnessforaParticularPurpose,T.C.A.472314and315. IV.WhetherthePlaintiffhasprovenaviableclaimundernegligenceandstrictliabilityfailuretowarntheories.  Mr.HuntfirstassertsthattheTrialCourterredingrantingtheDefendants'motionforsummaryjudgmentbecausetherearedisputedissuesofmaterialfactastotheclaimsofviolationoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,breachofwarrantiesofmerchantabilityandfitnessforaparticularpurpose,andfailuretowarn.  TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasclearlysetforththepropersummaryjudgmentstandardtobeappliedinTennessee.Theevaluationofasummaryjudgmentmotionmustaddressthesequestions: (1)whetherafactualdisputeexists;(2)whetherthedisputedfactismaterialtotheoutcomeofthecase;and(3)whetherthedisputedfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993).(Emphasisinoriginal.)  TheholdingsinByrdhavebeensummarizedbythisCourtinCanonieEnergy,Inc.v.King,anunpublishedopinionofthisCourtfiledinKnoxvilleonMarch1,1996:    [S]ummaryjudgmentshouldbeemployedwherethereisnodisputeovertheevidenceandthereisnoissueforajurytodecide.Rather,itisjustforthecourttoapplythelaw.Forapartytoavoidsummaryjudgment,itmustshowthatthefactindisputeismaterial;meaning,thisfactisonethat"mustbedecidedinordertoresolvethesubstantiveclaimordefenseatwhichthemotionisdirected."Ifsuchadisputed,materialfactdoesexist,thecourt"mustthendeterminewhetherthedisputedmaterialfactcreatesagenuineissuewithinthemeaningofRule56.03."Here,"thetestforgenuineissueiswhetherareasonablejurycouldlegitimatelyresolvethefactinfavorofonesideortheother.Iftheanswerisyes,summaryjudgmentisinappropriate;iftheanswerisno,summaryjudgmentisproperbecauseatrialwouldbepointless...."Whenapplyingthistest,"thecourtistoviewtheevidenceinalightfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandallowallreasonableinferencesinhisfavor."Itistheburdenofthenonmovingpartytodemonstratethattherearenodisputed,materialfactscreatingagenuineissuefortrialandthatsummaryjudgmentisappropriate.      Inreviewingtheorderforsummaryjudgment,wechoosetofirstaddresswhetherMr.HunthasaviableclaimundertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct(TCPA).TheTCPAisdesignedtopromotepoliciesthat protectconsumers...fromthosewhoengageinunfairordeceptiveactsorpracticesintheconductofanytradeorcommerceinpartorwhollywithinthisstate.T.C.A.4718102.TireAmericaprovidedMr.Huntwithexactlythekindoftiresheaskedthemtoinstall.Asalreadynoted,Mr.HuntrequestedthatTireAmerica puttwotiresonthecarthatwerethesameastheonesthatwasonthereandtakethetwobestonesandputthemintherear.Mr.Huntlaterexplainedthatwhathemeantwasfortiresofthesamewidthandheightbeplacedonthecar.ThatisexactlywhatTireAmericadid.Mr.Huntneverexpressedadesireforaspecificbrandnameortractionrating.  Furthermore,nowhereintherecordisthereanyevidencethattheTireAmericasalesmanmadeanymisrepresentationsregardingthequalityoranycharacteristicsofthetires.Theonlyrepresentationmadebythesalesmanwasthatthenewtireswerethesamewidthandheightasthetiresremainingonthecar.Mr.HunthaspresentednoevidencetoestablishanyunfairordeceptiveactsbyTireAmerica.Therefore,wefindMr.HunthasnotprovedaclaimundertheTCPA.  Mr.HuntattemptstobolsterhisclaimthattheDefendantsviolatedtheTCPAbyassertingthattheDefendantsalsoviolatedFederalD.O.T.labelingrequirements.However,Mr.HuntdidnotpleadtheseprovisionsoftheCodeofFederalRegulationsasrequiredbyRule8.05oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Pleadingsarenecessarytoapprisepartiesofclaimedactsofnegligenceandcodeviolations.Rule8.05statesthatanystatute,ordinance,orregulationrelieduponshallbestatedandclearlyidentified.Therefore,wewillnotanalyzetheregulationsapplicationtothisappeal.  Mr.HuntnextclaimsthattheDefendantsviolatedthewarrantiesofmerchantabilityandfitnessforparticularpurposebymanufacturingandsellingthetractionBtires.Theimpliedwarrantiesofmerchantabilityassuresabuyerthatthegoodspurchasedwill passwithoutobjectioninthetradeandthattheyare fitfortheordinarypurposesforwhichsuchgoodsareused.T.C.A.472314.However,amanufacturerisnotunderanydutytomanufactureonlythesafestandbestproductavailable.Kerleyv.StanleyWorks,553S.W.2d80(Tenn.App.1977).Mr.HuntpresentsnoevidencethatthetractionBtireswereobjectionablewithinthetiretrade.Infact,theonlytestimonyregardingthisissuedisclosesthateventractionCtiresaremanufacturedintheindustry.  Mr.HuntsexpertcouldonlytestifytothefactthatatractionAtirewouldstopavehiclequickerthanatractionBtire.Nowhere,however,wasthereevidencethatevensuggestedthatthetractionBtireswerenotfitfortheirordinarypurpose.TherewasalsonoproofsubmittedthatthetractionBtirespurchasedbyMr.Huntdidnotperformasareasonableconsumerwouldexpecttiresofthattractionrating,age,mileageandpricetoperform.Pattonv.McHone,822S.W.2d608(Tenn.App.1991).  Theimpliedwarrantyofmerchantabilityalsoprovidesthatgoodsbeadequatelylabeledandconformtothepromisesmadeonthelabel.T.C.A.472314(e)&(f).TireAmericahadlabelsontheirtiredisplaysreferencingtotraction,treadwear,etc.ThesidesofthetiresthemselvesshowedatractionBrating.Mr.Huntintroducednoproofthatthelabelsonthetiresmisrepresentedanythingaboutthetires.ThetireswerelabeledtractionBandthereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthetiresperformedtothecontrary.  Theimpliedwarrantyoffitnessforparticularpurpose,states:    Wheretheselleratthetimeofcontractinghasreasontoknowanyparticularpurposeforwhichthegoodsarerequiredandthatthebuyerisrelyingonthesellersskillorjudgmenttoselectorfurnishsuitablegoods,thereis...animpliedwarrantythatthegoodsshallbefitforsuchpurpose.    T.C.A.472315.  TireAmericassalesmanhadreasontoknowthatMr.Huntwouldusehistiresfornormaldrivingpurposesandnoproofwasshownthatthetireswerenotfitforthatpurpose.InorderforMr.HunttodefeatthesummaryjudgmentorderonaclaimthattheDefendantsbreachedanimpliedwarrantyofmerchantabilityorfitnessforaparticularpurpose,Mr.Huntisrequiredtoproducesomeevidencethatthetiresweresomehowdefectiveornotfitforthepurposeforwhichitwassold.MastersByMastersv.Rishton,863S.W.2d702(Tenn.App.1992).Therefore,withnoevidencethatareasonablejurycouldfindtosupporttheassertionthattheDefendantsviolatedthewarrantiesofmerchantabilityandfitnessforparticularpurpose,aclaimonthisissuemustfail.  Mr.HuntsfinalargumentisthathehasatriableclaimundernegligenceandstrictliabilityfortheDefendants'failuretowarn.InaTennesseeproductsliabilitycasetheplaintiffmustshowthattheproductinquestionwaseitherdefectiveorunreasonablydangerousatthetimeitleftthecontrolofthemanufacturerorseller.T.C.A.2928105(a).However,thisCourthasheldthat 'defectivecondition'asthetermiscontemplatedbytheActhasnoapplicationtotheordinaryfailuretowarncase.Goodev.TamkoAsphaltProducts,Inc.,anunpublishedopinionofthisCourtfiledinKnoxvilleonSeptember30,1988.Aplaintiffinafailuretowarncaseisstillrequiredtoshowthattheproductwasunreasonablydangerous.  TheTennesseeProductsLiabilityActdefinesanunreasonablydangerousproductasfollows:    "Unreasonablydangerous"meansthataproductisdangeroustoanextentbeyondthatwhichwouldbecontemplatedbytheordinaryconsumerwhopurchasesit,withtheordinaryknowledgecommontothecommunityastoitscharacteristics,orthattheproductbecauseofitsdangerousconditionwouldnotbeputonthemarketbyareasonablyprudentmanufacturerorsellerassumingthatheknewofitsdangerouscondition.    T.C.A.2928102(8).TheActprovidesfortwotestsindeterminingwhetheraproductisunreasonablydangerous:theconsumerexpectationtestandtheprudentmanufacturertest.  Undertheconsumerexpectationtestaproductisdeterminedtobeunreasonablydangerousifitwouldbe dangeroustoanextentbeyondthatwhichwouldbecontemplatedbytheordinaryconsumerwhopurchasesit,withtheordinaryknowledgecommontothecommunityastoitscharacteristics.RaybyHolmanv.BicCorp.,925S.W.2d527(Tenn.1996)(citingRestatementSecondofTorts).Theplaintiffisrequiredtoestablishwhatanordinaryconsumerpurchasingtheproductwouldexpect.Mr.HunthasfailedtoprovideanyevidencetoestablishwhatanordinaryconsumerwouldexpectfromthepurchaseofatractionBtire.Althoughnotevidenceofconsumerexpectation,thisCourtwouldreasonablyguessthatanordinaryconsumerwouldexpectatractionBtiretoperformlikeanordinarytireexceptwithlesstractionthanatractionAtireandmoretractionthanatractionCtire.Weseenoproofanywhereintherecordthatthetiresinquestionperformedinacontrarymanner.  SinceMr.Huntprovidesnoproofthatthetiresareunreasonablydangerousundertheconsumerexpectationtesthemustalternativelyturntotheprudentmanufacturertest. [T]heprudentmanufacturertestrequiresproofaboutthereasonablenessofthemanufacturerorsellersdecisiontomarketaproductassumingknowledgeofitsdangerouscondition.Ray,supra.Essentiallythisrequiresariskutilityanalysis.Theriskutilityanalysisisbasedonconsiderationofusefulness,costs,seriousnessandlikelihoodofpotentialharm,etc.Ray,supra.Again,noevidenceappearsintherecordthatshowstheriskofproducingandsellingtractionBtiresoutweighingtheirutility.Furthermore,thefactthattractionBtiresaremanufacturedandsoldthroughouttheindustry,althoughnotdispositive,addsgreatweighttotheDefendants'sideofthescale.Therefore,inthefaceofnoprooftothecontrarythetractionBtireswerenotunreasonablydangerousand,thus,Mr.Hunthasnotriableclaimunderatheoryoffailuretowarn.  Mr.HunthasdonenothinginthissuitbutestablishthattractionAtireswillstopacarquickerthantractionBtires.WecanfindnoevidenceintherecordthatestablishesanywrongdoingonthepartoftheDefendants.Bridgestone/FirestonehasclearlynotviolatedtheunreasonablydangerousstandardbymanufacturingtractionBtiresandTireAmericadidnotactinadeceptivemannerbutonlyprovidedMr.Huntwithwhatwasasked.InlightofthecompletelackofevidencetosupportanyofMr.HuntsclaimswefindnoerrorintheTrialCourtsuseoftheTennesseesummaryjudgmentstandard.  Forthereasonsstatedabove,thejudgmentoftheTrialCourtgrantingTireAmerica,Inc.,andBridgestone/Firestone,Inc.,summaryjudgmentisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMr.Hunt.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________CliffordE.Sanders,Sp.J.