ÿWPC® fÍÐæÑàQ~ !ô‹Ä?àS~¹À&ǦϡÞH¬éܪËÒô~¹ÃÊŽàÜœà¥ë¹ŸvjŸá³¨›iÜ Òt+¨”®L“з¨ªÎï©Ô‹àÅ[?©­ š&ÞçG\÷éö¾B9|sTIy…v¤Ü¬ïºãS.6îlB3†Ï0F(ÏXßô±6náõMõ»ë§hµ<õòç!n"äý·¸ýÌŸWôꇭ+€¡5w:®#ô×ÊüŰ*m¦M²¢.PH†Bª«á•D+­rɽÌl YØ23YˇЫåÏV@e¸÷ù ,FÚo·NL*GWÈzT'UÍ}j26ݯ궀Ò9!Y/~õ©$dQ0è`:—LŽå¬q3׋ãZë?0:qÿRvG w`C³ šV‘Ò-+lÓÇWNí¡¯Ç)K‹Ô£ê#z €7èÞ“7ª;iÍÊU¸²™¥º £œk±-¤€÷„k¢ ¢¦%(¡Œª6{' <(q,h*rc£7à{m˜,còvM6‹)Ó£F•œ‹ð)käʵ~ZUä6^{$†¿ úñäUQ—úßç¯[_}¯œJYéœ6ÉAî÷Ü0³7ŸVké¾o‘­âü^b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U!N¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ UN™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9 AŸÿNž0 ÐEí 0Dï3DDGZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZb¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ 0ë©©©© B”” 0¤± D5U D-Š 0K·· ASÆU 0¤ 0D¿ A«˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ž/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5X[Z‘ I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK Corlew COACantrell P.J.HuskeyLibbaAmpritekvenergization G.H.glastic uncontrovertedanticipatableRoyson R.J.PfizerBrowderPettigrewGerdtsKerleyC.J.S.Tatum contributorilyMcClainBalentineOzburnHesseyFrugePeralesBirmanGoodloe CBLPenleySeaton HCAServs HousLickiss VariBallentineMcLaindispositive Ý ƒRUÕ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHe€was€assisted€in€his€inspection€of€the€equipment€by€a€field€service€technician€for€Square€D€and€severalÐ ° ÐAmprite€electricians.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRUÕ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDe„energizing€and€locking€out€the€equipment€are€processes€used€to€completely€shut€the€equipment€off€and€de„Ð ° Ðenergize€it.€€They€include€a€procedure€for€testing€the€equipment€to€make€sure€that€it€is€safe€to€work€on.€€Every€employeeÐ tÄ Ðof€Amprite€is€issued€a€tag€with€his€or€her€picture€on€it€for€lock€out€purposes,€and€every€employee€has€his€or€her€own€lock. Ñ ° Ñ =Ý ƒRUÕ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€evidence€shows€that€Square€D€used€glastic,€a€thin€polymer€of€glass€and€plastic,€to€prevent€arcing€betweenÐ ° Ðthe€blades€which€were€located€in€the€upper€bus€of€the€unit.€€- ù-(|G2UÕ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P…»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»Ô d(|3 >$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P…»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 >$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P…»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼P…»»»ÔÑ8€IXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€OaÑà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îODP…ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼P…»îîOD#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€7,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XIX»¼P…ÔÌò òÔ#†¼P…»XXI#ÔSUSAN€TAYLOR€v.€SQUARE€D€COMPANYÔ‡XIX»¼P…Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€43,748€€€€€€Robert€E.€Corlew,€III,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„01620„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€30,€2003Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDisobeying€the€direct€orders€of€his€supervisor,€an€electrician€began€work€on€a€substation€withoutÐ xÈ  Ðfollowing€the€proper€safety€procedures.€€He€was€electrocuted€and€perished€almost€instantly.€€TheÐ d´ Ðwidow€of€the€electrician€brought€suit€against€the€manufacturer€of€the€substation,€alleging€that€theÐ P  Ðmanufacturer€was€negligent€and€had€defectively€designed€an€unreasonably€dangerous€product.€€TheÐ <Œ Ðtrial€court€granted€summary€judgment€for€the€manufacturer.€€Because€there€are€no€material€factualÐ (x Ðdisputes,€and€the€negligence€of€the€electrician€was€clearly€greater€than€that€of€the€manufacturer,€weÐ d Ðaffirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð P ÐÓ‘ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ Ø( ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼P…»àXIi#ÔÔ€XIX.¼P…ÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,€óóÐ œì Ðand€òòWilliam€Charles€Leeóó,€Sp.€J.,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌRobert€L.€Huskey,€Manchester,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Susan€Taylor.Ð `° ÐÌJames€H.€London,€Libba€Bond,€Lori€M.€Ritter,€Knoxville,€Tennessee;€Jeffrey€L.€Reed,€Murfreesboro,Ð 8!ˆ  ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Square€D€Company.Ð $"t! ÐÓ@ÓÌò òOPINIONÐ ü#L# Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àSusan€Taylor€brought€suit€against€Square€D€Company€(ð ðSquare€Dðð)€seeking€damages€for€theÐ Ô%$!% Ðdeath€of€her€husband,€Michael€Taylor,€which€occurred€at€the€Bosch€Braking€facility€in€Clarksville,Ð À&"& ÐTennessee.€€Mr.€Taylor,€a€journeyman€electrician,€was€electrocuted€while€performing€work€on€aÐ ¬'ü"' Ðsubstation.€€Mrs.€Taylor€alleged€that€the€manufacturer,€Square€D,€was€negligent,€or€that€theÐ ˜(è#( Ðequipment€it€supplied€was€defective€in€design€and€unreasonably€dangerous.€€Relying€on€severalÐ „)Ô$) Ðaffidavits€and€depositions,€Square€D€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€arguing€that€there€wereÐ p*À%* Ðno€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€they€were€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€AfterÐ \+¬&+ Ða€hearing,€the€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€for€Square€D.€€Mrs.€Taylor€appeals.Ð H,˜', Ѐò òà  àó óÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à@ãã!ìàI.€Undisputed€FactsˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€undisputed€facts€show€the€following:€€Mr.€Taylor€was€employed€by€Amprite€ElectricÐ ˆØ ÐCompany€as€an€electrician.€€Amprite€was€installing€a€new€electrical€service€for€the€Bosch€BrakingÐ tÄ Ðfacility€which€included€a€double„ended€fed€substation.€€The€unit€is€divided€into€two€portions,€referredÐ `° Ðto€as€a€top€bus€and€a€bottom€bus.€€Each€bus€can€work€independently.€€In€other€words,€the€top€portionÐ L œ Ðcan€be€energized€without€the€bottom€portion€being€energized.€€The€top€bus€is€accessed€by€a€door;€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðbottom€bus€by€a€panel.€€€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àOver€Labor€Day€weekend€1999,€the€manufacturing€facility€was€shut€down€so€that€the€existingÐ ü L  Ðservice€could€be€disconnected€and€the€new€service€required€by€plant€expansion,€installed.€€OnÐ è 8  ÐSeptember€5,€1999,€Mr.€Taylor€was€working€at€the€Bosch€Braking€facility€when€he€was€told€by€hisÐ Ô$  Ðsupervisor,€superintendent€and€general€foreman€David€Vari,€that€the€high€voltage€cables€at€the€newÐ À  Ðpenthouse€in€substation€6€needed€to€be€terminated,€or€completely€shut€down€and€de„energized€so€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðnew€equipment€could€be€installed.€€Square€D€manufactured€and€assembled€the€switchgear€inÐ ˜è  Ðsubstation€6€that€Mr.€Taylor€would€be€working€on.€€The€substation€had€15€thousand€volt€conductors.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€Mr.€Taylor€and€Mr.€Vari€walked€to€the€substation,€the€substation€was€partiallyÐ \¬ Ðenergized.€€Mr.€Vari€showed€Mr.€Taylor€which€wires€needed€to€go€on€which€feeds,€and€how€itÐ H˜ Ðneeded€to€be€fed.€€The€two€then€walked€to€the€rear€of€the€unit€where€the€back€cover€had€beenÐ 4„ Ðremoved,€but€the€front€covers€of€the€switchgear€were€in€place.€€There€was€yellow€caution€tape€in€theÐ  p Ðarea€behind€the€substation.€€Mr.€Vari€told€Mr.€Taylor€that€the€top€portion€or€upper€bus€of€the€unit€wasÐ  \ Ðenergized,€the€lower€bus€or€portion€of€the€unit€was€de„energized.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àMr.€Vari€then€told€Mr.€Taylor€that€he€was€going€to€go€get€help€to€de„energize€and€lock€outÐ Ð  Ðthe€switchgear.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€Vari€then€left€the€area€where€the€substation€was€located€and€walked€toward€theÐ ¼  Ðoffice€when€he€heard€an€explosion.€€Mr.€Vari€returned€to€the€substation€where€he€found€Mr.€TaylorÐ ¨ø Ðwith€his€clothes€on€fire.€€The€front€cover€of€the€switchgear€was€removed€and€Mr.€Taylorððs€legs€wereÐ ”ä Ðinside€the€lower€portion€of€the€unit.€€Mr.€Taylor€died€as€a€result€of€electrocution.€€Mr.€Vari€couldÐ €Ð Ðthink€of€no€circumstance€in€which€you€would€need€to€get€into€the€unit€while€it€was€energized.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAttached€to€Mr.€Variððs€deposition€were€several€accident€reports€and€witness€statements.€€TheÐ D!” Ðwitness€statement€taken€by€the€Montgomery€County€Sheriffððs€Department€and€the€witness€statementÐ 0"€  ÐMr.€Vari€completed€for€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Labor,€Division€of€Occupational€Safety€andÐ #l! ÐHealth€are€consistent€with€the€sequence€of€events€that€Mr.€Vari€described.€€A€Supervisorððs€AccidentÐ $X" ÐInvestigation€Report€of€Personal€Injury€was€completed€by€Mr.€Vari€for€Amprite.€€It€states:Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà8  àMike€[Mr.€Taylor]€proceeded€to€terminate€15€kv€conductors€after€being€instructed€toÐ ° Ðwait€for€help€and€to€lock„out€the€energized€portion€of€the€switch€board.€€He€removedÐ œì Ðthe€covered€15€kv€switch€and€installed€one€conductor€before€shorting€out€the€switch.€ÐˆØÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌThe€statement€indicates€that€the€accident€was€the€result€of€human€error€rather€than€fault€in€theÐ `° Ðequipment€because€ð ðMike€failed€to€follow€instructions,€safety€policy,€safe€work€habits,€and€goodÐ L œ Ðjudgment.ðð€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àBrian€Johnson,€a€field€services€representative€for€Square€D,€€was€performing€start„up€testingÐ  ` Ðon€480€volt€breakers€in€the€low€voltage€switchgear€in€the€same€penthouse€that€day€on€a€differentÐ ü L  Ðsubstation.€€The€equipment€that€Mr.€Johnson€was€working€on€was€not€connected€in€any€way€to€theÐ è 8  Ðequipment€that€Mr.€Taylor€was€working€on.€€He€was€working€with€his€back€to€Mr.€Taylor€at€aÐ Ô$  Ðdistance€of€about€15€to€20€feet€when€he€heard€the€explosion.€€When€Mr.€Johnson€turned€around,€heÐ À  Ðsaw€Mr.€Taylor€on€his€back€with€his€clothing€on€fire.€€Mr.€Johnson€did€not€energize€the€substationÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€Mr.€Taylor€was€working€on,€substation€6.€€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àMr.€Lyle€Lickiss,€a€senior€staff€engineer€who€investigated€the€accident€for€Square€D,Ð pÀ Ðperformed€an€inspection€of€the€Square€D€equipment€at€the€Bosch€Braking€facility€on€September€7,Ð \¬ Ð1999.€€He€inspected€the€high€voltage€interrupter€switch€on€the€substation€that€Mr.€Taylor€wasÐ H˜ Ðworking€on€at€the€time€of€the€accident׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€concluded€that€the€switch€was€not€defective€orÐ 4„ Ðunreasonably€dangerous.€€He€opined€that€the€switch€should€have€been€de„energized€by€Mr.€TaylorÐ  p Ðprior€to€his€working€on€the€switch€and€that€the€switch€was€unrelated€to€the€low€voltage€switchboardÐ  \ Ðsections€which€Mr.€Johnson€was€working€on€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€Mr.€Lickiss€did€not€generateÐ øH Ða€report€about€the€accident€because€he€stated€that€he€was€not€asked€by€legal€counsel€for€Square€D€toÐ ä4 Ðgenerate€such€a€report.€€In€Mr.€Lickissððs€opinion,€ð ðMr.€Taylor€caused€his€own€accident.€€It€was€hisÐ Ð  Ðnegligent€actions€of€not€obeying€his€foremanððs€instructions.ðð€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àAs€an€employee€of€Amprite,€Mr.€Taylor€had€received€an€Amprite€Accident€PreventionÐ ”ä ÐProgram€booklet.€€Subsection€A€of€the€booklet€stated€that€employees€were€to€ð ðalways€de„energizeÐ €Ð Ðcircuits€before€working€except€when€itððs€not€practical€as€determined€by€the€job€supervisor€€(See€lockÐ l¼ Ðout/tag€out€policy).ðð€€The€booklet€states€that:€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àThe€purpose€of€this€procedure€[the€lock€out/tag€out€procedure]€is€to€preventÐ 0"€  Ðunexpected€energization,€start„up,€or€release€of€stored€energy€in€order€to€preventÐ #l! Ðinjury.€€It€is€to€be€followed€during€servicing€and€maintenance€of€machines€andÐ $X" Ðequipment€in€which€the€ð ðunexpectedðð€start„up€of€the€machine€could€occur.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€person€working€on€such€projects€is€responsible€to€see€that€the€circuit€is€properlyÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âlocked€out.€€If€an€energy€isolating€device€is€capable€of€being€locked€out,€then€a€lockÐ ¸'#& Ðshall€be€used.€€If€it€is€not€possible€to€use€a€lock,€then€the€tag€out€system€will€be€used.€Ð ° ÐNo€one€is€to€ever€remove€a€tag€other€than€the€person€who€attached€it.€€ÐœìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà8  àThe€understanding€of€this€procedure€and€the€steps€to€follow€could€mean€theÐ tÄ Ðdifference€between€life€and€death.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Accident€Prevention€Program€booklet€states€the€purpose€of€the€lock€out/tag€outÐ 8 ˆ Ðprocedure€as€follows:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àto€establish€the€minimum€requirements€for€the€lockout€of€energy€isolating€devicesÐ ü L  Ðwhenever€maintenance€or€servicing€is€done€on€machines€or€equipment.€€It€shall€beÐ è 8  Ðused€to€ensure€that€the€machine€or€equipment€is€stopped,€isolated€from€all€potentiallyÐ Ô$  Ðhazardous€energy€sources€and€locked€out€before€employees€perform€any€servicing€orÐ À  Ðmaintenance€where€the€unexpected€energization€or€start„up€of€the€machine€orÐ ¬ü  Ðequipment€or€release€of€stored€energy€could€cause€injury.€€Ð˜è Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Accident€Prevention€Program€booklet€also€requires€all€employees€to€Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€comply€with€the€restrictions€and€limitations€imposed€upon€them€during€the€useÐ H˜ Ðof€lockout.€€The€authorized€employees€are€required€to€perform€the€lockout€inÐ 4„ Ðaccordance€with€this€procedure.€€All€employees,€upon€observing€a€machine€or€pieceÐ  p Ðof€equipment€which€is€locked€out€to€perform€servicing€or€maintenance€shall€notÐ  \ Ðattempt€to€start,€energize,€or€use€that€machine€or€equipment.€ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€lock€out/tag€out€procedure€is€also€described€in€a€step„by€„step€fashion€in€the€AccidentÐ Ð  ÐPrevention€Program€booklet.€€Mr.€Vari€described€the€lock€out/tag€out€procedure€that€should€haveÐ ¼  Ðbeen€followed€on€the€day€Mr.€Taylor€was€killed€as€follows:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àWe€would€have€went€up€to€the€power€house€and€opened€the€switches€that€fedÐ €Ð ÐSubstation€5€and€6€and€locked€them€out.€€.€.€.we€would€went€up€there,€opened€themÐ l¼ Ðswitches,€locked€them€out,€.€.€.€which€would€have€killed€the€power€to€the€substation,Ð X ¨ Ðlocked€them€out€and€then€got€the€high€voltage€gloves€and€the€tester€and€tested€it€andÐ D!” Ðgrounded€everything€out.€€Then€once€we€seen€that€everything€was€grounded€out€andÐ 0"€  Ðthere€was€no€electrical€charge€on€there,€we€would€then€proceed€work.€€Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAccording€to€an€Amprite€Accident€Prevention€Program€Warning€Notice,€Mr.€Taylor€wasÐ ô$D # Ðissued€a€warning€on€September€22,€1998€that€he€was€ð ðworking€on€Section€„€0€of€MT53„1€machines,Ð à%0!$ Ðwithout€lock€out/tag€out€of€equipment.ðð€€Mr.€Taylor€was€disciplined€and€ordered€to€review€the€properÐ Ì&"% Ðprocedures.€€He€received€the€infraction€due€to€ð ðnegligenceðð€and€ð ðpotential€harm€to€other€employees.ðð€Ð ¸'#& ÐThe€technical€record€also€contains€sign„in€sheets€from€ð ðsafety€programðð€meetings€held€at€AmpriteÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€Mr.€Taylor€attended€wherein€lock€out/tag€out€procedures,€safety€glasses,€hard€hats,€bodyÐ )à$( Ðharnesses,€€clean€up,€etc.€were€reviewed€on€multiple€occasions.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThere€were€several€warning€labels€on€the€substation€that€Mr.€Taylor€was€working€on€in€theÐ ° Ðpenthouse.€€The€first,€located€on€the€bottom€cover€that€was€removed€by€Mr.€Taylor€stated,€ð ðDanger,Ð œì Ðhazard€of€electric€shock€or€burn.€€Turn€off€power€supply€in€this€equipment€before€working€on€orÐ ˆØ Ðinside.ðð€€Two€other€warning€labels€stated,€ð ðDanger.€€High€voltage.€€Keep€out.ðð€and€ð ðWarning.€€DoÐ tÄ Ðnot€service€switchgear€unless€all€conductors€have€been€grounded€according€to€an€accessible€safetyÐ `° Ðprocedure.ðð€€The€warning€labels€were€all€easily€visible€and€brightly€colored.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà@ìàII.€The€Plaintiffððs€ExpertˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àMr.€G.H.€Redden,€the€expert€for€the€plaintiff€and€the€father„in„law€of€Mr.€Taylor,€filed€threeÐ ü L  Ðaffidavits€and€gave€deposition€testimony€in€preparation€for€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€the€motionÐ è 8  Ðfor€summary€judgment.€€His€affidavits€note€his€extensive€electrical€engineering€experience€and€theÐ Ô$  Ðfact€that€he€personally€examined€the€penthouse€and€substation€6€and€the€equipment€the€day€after€theÐ À  Ðaccident.€€While€Mr.€Redden€had€personally€never€designed€a€switch€like€the€one€Mr.€Taylor€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðworking€on,€he€had€worked€with€many€of€them€over€the€course€of€his€career.€€He€felt€that€any€generalÐ ˜è  Ðelectrician,€like€Mr.€Taylor,€would€be€familiar€with€a€lock€out/tag€out€procedure€and€the€necessityÐ „Ô  Ðof€performing€such€a€procedure€prior€to€commencing€work€on€a€piece€of€electrical€equipment.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àMr.€Redden€felt€that€Mr.€Variððs€affidavit€was€contradictory,€but€had€no€concrete€proof€toÐ H˜ Ðdispute€the€sequence€of€events€described€by€Mr.€Vari.€€He€felt€that€in€order€for€Mr.€Vari€to€tell€Mr.Ð 4„ ÐTaylor€how€to€feed€the€wires€in€the€substation,€it€would€have€been€necessary€for€the€panels€on€theÐ  p Ðswitching€gear€to€be€removed€by€Mr.€Vari.€€After€looking€at€the€equipment€he€opined€that€ð ðthe€cablesÐ  \ Ðare€inside€the€enclosure,€and€thereððs€steel€sheet€metal€between€„€„€that€you€canððt€see€throughðð€and€heÐ øH Ðð ðthought€the€cover€was€on€since€it€was€energized.€€It€would€be€stupid€to€have€it€off€if€itððs€energized.Ð ä4 Ð.€.€.€€I€believe€that€one€or€both€of€them€removed€that€cover,€and€I€think€that€the€cover€was€removedÐ Ð  Ðin€the€presence€of,€at€least,€David€Vari€and€probably€Mike,€too,€because€you€have€to€be€able€toÐ ¼  Ðremove€the€covers€to€see€how€itððs€connected.ðð€€When€asked€what€factual€basis€he€had€to€support€hisÐ ¨ø Ðopinion€that€the€covers€were€removed€in€that€fashion,€he€responded,€ð ðmany€years€of€experience€thatÐ ”ä Ðyou€donððt€have€covers€off€of€a€15€thousand€volt€switchgear€exposed€to€hot€live€parts.ðð€€He€arguedÐ €Ð Ðthat€Mr.€Variððs€testimony€was€that€Mr.€Taylor€opened€the€panels€to€the€switchgear€after€he€left€to€goÐ l¼ Ðget€help€to€lock€out/tag€out€the€unit.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àMr.€Redden€also€disagreed€with€Mr.€Johnsonððs€statement€that€the€two€substations€wereÐ 0"€  Ðcompletely€isolated€from€each€other.€€He€asserted€that€the€units€were€connected€electrically,€butÐ #l! Ðagain,€had€no€concrete€proof€to€rebut€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Johnson.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àMr.€Redden€also€contended€that€while€the€equipment€was€not€defective,€it€was€unreasonablyÐ à%0!$ Ðdangerous.€€He€felt€there€should€have€been€some€sort€of€insulating€material€or€barrier€between€theÐ Ì&"% Ðupper€and€lower€portions€of€the€unit,€such€as€a€thin€sheet€of€glastic,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€which€would€serve€as€a€barrierÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€about€89%€of€the€area€involved€and€could€have€saved€Mr.€Taylorððs€life.€€Mr.€Redden€admitted,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðhowever,€that€even€with€the€addition€of€the€glastic€between€the€upper€and€lower€portions€of€the€unit,Ð ° Ðarcing€could€still€occur.€€Mr.€Redden€also€suggested€that€the€equipment€should€have€been€designedÐ œì Ðso€that€there€was€no€way€for€it€to€be€energized€while€the€covers€were€removed.€€Mr.€Redden€also€feltÐ ˆØ Ðthat€the€unit€itself€was€dangerous€in€that€there€was€no€reason€for€anyone€to€be€able€to€remove€theÐ tÄ Ðpanels€while€the€unit€was€energized,€and€that€this€type€of€ð ðdead„front€panelðð€was€available€to€SquareÐ `° ÐD.Ð L œ ÐÌà@ìàIII.€€Trial€Courtððs€RulingˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€for€Square€D.€€In€dismissing€Mrs.€Taylorððs€lawsuit,Ð ü L  Ðthe€trial€court€found:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àWe€have€examined€the€record,€however,€in€detail,€and€continue€to€arrive€at€theÐ À  Ðunmistakable€conclusion€that€a€substantial€amount€of€the€fault€associated€with€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdeath€of€Mr.€Taylor€unfortunately€rests€with€the€deceased.€€Realizing,€of€course,€thatÐ ˜è  ÐMr.€Taylor€is€not€available€to€present€his€version€of€the€facts,€the€clear€evidence€fromÐ „Ô  Ðthe€surviving€witnesses€shows€that€Mr.€Taylor€was€a€very€experienced€electrician,Ð pÀ Ðand€knew,€or€certainly€should€have€known,€of€the€dangers€he€faced€when€he€enteredÐ \¬ Ða€high€voltage€switching€mechanism€without€following€proper€safety€procedures.€Ð H˜ ÐBased€on€Mr.€Taylorððs€experience,€it€would€appear€that€he€knew,€or€should€haveÐ 4„ Ðknown,€that€the€proper€safety€procedures€had€not€been€followed.€€Further,€theÐ  p Ðevidence€is€uncontroverted€that€Mr.€Taylor€was€told€in€no€uncertain€terms€that€theÐ  \ Ðsafety€procedures€had€not€yet€been€followed,€and€thus€he€was€instructed€to€wait€untilÐ øH Ðthose€safety€procedures€were€followed,€the€unit€was€de„energized,€and€a€helper€wasÐ ä4 Ðprovided€to€him.€€ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€question€before€us,€then,€is€whether€as€a€matter€of€law€an€individual€can€be€heldÐ ¨ø Ðto€be€less€than€fifty€percent€at€fault€where,€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€Plaintiff,Ð ”ä Ðthe€deceased€was€experienced,€knew€of€the€dangers,€knew€that€the€switch,€or€at€leastÐ €Ð Ða€portion€thereof,€was€energized,€knew€that€proper€safety€procedures€required€de„Ð l¼ Ðenergizing€the€unit€and€a€ð ðlock€out/tag€outðð€procedure€which€was€mandatory€andÐ X ¨ Ðwhich€the€employer€was€preparing€to€implement€had€not€been€accomplished,€andÐ D!” Ðwhere€he€was€told€not€to€enter€the€switch€until€it€was€de„energized,€proper€ð ðlockÐ 0"€  Ðout/tag€outðð€procedures€were€followed,€and€a€helper€was€provided€to€him.€€TheÐ #l! Ðemployer,€of€course,€is€protected€by€the€workersðð€compensation€statutes,€and€faultÐ $X" Ðcannot€be€assessed€to€the€employer.€€The€only€other€fault€which€could€be€apportionedÐ ô$D # Ðis€to€the€manufacturer€of€the€switch.€€Again€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€Plaintiff,Ð à%0!$ Ðthere€is€no€evidence€showing€that€the€switch€was€defective€or€improperlyÐ Ì&"% Ðmanufactured.€€The€only€fault€attributable€to€the€manufacturer€of€the€switch,€againÐ ¸'#& Ðin€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€Plaintiff,€is€through€defective€design.€€Whether€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdesign€was€defective,€and,€in€effect,€whether€the€manufacturer€should€have€designedÐ )à$( Ðthe€switch€in€a€safer€manner€is€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact.€€The€amount€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðfault,€if€any,€attributable€to€the€manufacturer€for€the€defective€design,€is€also€a€matterÐ h+¸&* Ðof€fact€to€be€determined€by€jury.€€Whether€the€total€fault€of€the€manufacturer,Ð ° Ðhowever,€rises€to€the€level€of€fifty€percent€of€the€total€fault,€is€a€question€of€law€whichÐ œì Ðthe€Court€may€determine€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€After€considerationÐ ˆØ Ðof€all€of€the€evidence,€we€have€reached€the€conclusion€that€the€fault€of€theÐ tÄ Ðmanufacturer,€as€a€matter€of€law,€is€considerably€less€than€fifty€percent.€€Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àIn€deciding€this€issue,€we€have€taken€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€contestedÐ 8 ˆ Ðissues€in€favor€of€the€Plaintiff€and€against€the€Defendant.€€We€have€considered,€inÐ $ t Ðaccordance€with€the€contentions€of€the€Plaintiff,€that€David€Vari€removed€panels€onÐ  ` Ðthe€switch€as€asserted€by€Gerald€Redden€and€contrary€to€the€contentions€of€SquareÐ ü L  ÐD€and€the€testimony€of€David€Vari.€€We€have€considered,€as€the€Plaintiff€suggests,Ð è 8  Ðthat€Square€D€should€have€manufactured€the€switch€with€a€safety€device€which€wouldÐ Ô$  Ðhave€sounded€an€alarm€when€the€unit€was€energized€and€the€panels€were€removed,Ð À  Ðbut€we€find€this€to€be€of€little€significance,€because€it€is€uncontroverted€that€Mr.Ð ¬ü  ÐTaylor€knew€the€unit€was€energized.€€We€have€further€considered,€as€the€PlaintiffÐ ˜è  Ðcontends,€that€Square€D€could€have€manufactured€the€switch€so€that€it€was€de„Ð „Ô  Ðenergized€when€the€panels€were€removed,€but€again€find€this€design€issue€to€be€lessÐ pÀ Ðsignificant€when€compared€with€the€fact€that€Mr.€Taylor€was€an€experiencedÐ \¬ Ðelectrician,€he€knew€the€switch€was€energized,€the€switch€bore€more€than€oneÐ H˜ Ðwarning,€Mr.€Taylor€had€been€specifically€told€not€to€work€on€the€switch€until€it€wasÐ 4„ Ðde„energized€and€another€electrician€arrived€to€help,€and€lockout„tag€out€proceduresÐ  p Ðwere€implemented.€€We€have€also€considered€that€a€shield€could€have€been€put€inÐ  \ Ðplace€between€the€top€and€bottom€portions€of€the€switch,€again€as€the€Plaintiff€hasÐ øH Ðsuggested,€but€also€recognize€that€the€evidence€shows€that€holes€would€have€to€be€cutÐ ä4 Ðinto€such€a€shield€to€allow€the€switch€to€work€properly,€and€arcing€could€still€occur.€Ð Ð  ÐWe€believe€the€proximate€cause€of€the€accident€was€the€action€of€Mr.€Taylor€inÐ ¼  Ðperforming€work€on€a€unit€he€knew€was€energized€when€he€knew€his€work€was€inÐ ¨ø Ðviolation€of€the€directions€of€his€supervisor,€generally€accepted€lock€out/tag€outÐ ”ä Ðprocedures,€the€company€safety€policy,€and€warning€labels€on€the€switch€itself.€Ð€ÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àThus,€tragic€as€the€untimely€death€of€Mr.€Taylor€is€shown€to€be,€we€must€reach€theÐ X ¨ Ðunmistakable€conclusion€that€as€a€matter€of€law€he€was€in€fact€responsible€for€moreÐ D!” Ðthan€fifty€percent€of€the€fault€which€resulted€in€his€death,€and€thus€the€fault€of€Mr.Ð 0"€  ÐTaylor€must€be€attributed€to€the€Plaintiff,€and€the€Plaintiff€cannot€recover.€€Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Mrs.€Taylor€argues€that€the€ultimate€cause€of€Mr.€Taylorððs€death€was€a€defectiveÐ ô$D # Ðdesign€in€the€equipment€upon€which€he€was€working€and€that€his€death€could€have€been€avoided€byÐ à%0!$ Ðsome€simple€design€changes.€€She€further€argues€that,€based€on€the€evidence€available,€a€jury,€notÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€trial€judge€deciding€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€should€determine€whether€or€not€theÐ ¸'#& Ðnegligence€of€Mr.€Taylor€exceeded€50%.€€In€response,€Square€D€argues€that€the€trial€court€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcorrect€in€granting€summary€judgment€because€the€undisputed€facts€demonstrate€that€the€switchgearÐ )à$( Ðon€which€Mr.€Taylor€was€working€was€not€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous.€Square€D€alsoÐ |*Ì%) Ðargues€that€the€undisputed€facts€show€that€the€negligence€of€Mr.€Taylor€in€ignoring€the€proper€safetyÐ h+¸&* ÐÑOaÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñprocedures,€prominent€warning€signs,€and€explicit€directions€of€his€supervisor€were€the€direct€causeÐ ° Ðof€his€death.Ð œì ÐÌà@—— ìàIV.€€Defect€in€DesignÔ‡ XIXXXIԈРtÄ ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Tennessee€law,€set€forth€in€the€Tennessee€Products€Liability€Act,€òòseeóó€Tenn.Ð L œ ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€29„28„101€to€„108,€a€manufacturer€or€seller€of€a€product€may€be€held€liable€for€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðinjury€caused€by€its€productÔ#†XIXX XI¯j#ÔÔ‡ XIXXXIÔ€only€if€the€ð ðproduct€is€determined€to€be€in€a€defective€condition€orÐ $ t Ðunreasonably€dangerous€at€the€time€it€left€the€control€of€the€manufacturer€or€seller.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ  ` ÐAnn.€ðð€29„28„105;€òòDavis€v.€Komatsu€America€Industries€Corp.óó,€42€S.W.3d€34€(Tenn.€2001).€€AÐ ü L  Ðplaintiff€must€thus€show€either€that€a€product€is€defective€or€that€it€is€unreasonably€dangerous.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àA€product€is€considered€ð ðunreasonably€dangerousðð€if:Ð À  ÐÌà8  à[the]€product€is€dangerous€to€an€extent€beyond€that€which€would€be€contemplated€byÐ ˜è  Ðthe€ordinary€consumer€who€purchases€it,€with€the€ordinary€knowledge€common€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðcommunity€as€to€its€characteristics,€or€that€the€product€because€of€its€dangerousÐ pÀ Ðcondition€would€not€be€put€on€the€market€by€a€reasonably€prudent€manufacturer€orÐ \¬ Ðseller,€assuming€that€the€manufacturer€or€seller€knew€of€its€dangerous€condition.€€ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐòòóóÔ#†XIXX XIl#ÔÔ‡ XIXXXIÔÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„102(8).€€A€product€is€not€unreasonably€dangerous€because€of€a€failure€toÐ  p Ðadequately€warn€of€a€danger€or€hazard€that€is€apparent€to€the€ordinary€user.Ô#†XIXX XIŸp#ÔÔ‡ XIXXXIÔ€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„Ð  \ Ð28„105(d).€€Ð øH ÐÔ#†XIXX XI¦q#ÔÔ‡ XIXXXIÔ€€Ð ä4 Ðà  àA€ð ðdefective€condition,ðð€on€the€other€hand,€is€defined€as€ð ða€condition€of€a€product€thatÐ Ð  Ðrenders€it€unsafe€for€normal€or€anticipatable€handling€and€consumption.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„Ð ¼  Ð102(2).€€In€interpreting€and€applying€the€definition€of€defective€condition,€courts€have€recognizedÐ ¨ø Ðthat€one€factor€to€be€considered€is€ð ðconsumer€knowledge€about€the€risks€inherent€in€the€use€of€(the)Ð ”ä Ðproduct.ðð€€òòRoyson€v.€R.J.€Reynolds€Tobacco€Co.óó,€849€F.2d€230,€236€(6th€Cir.€1988).€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àFurther,€the€legislature€has€decided€that€in€making€the€determination€of€whether€a€productÐ X ¨ Ðis€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous,€€Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àthe€state€of€scientific€and€technological€knowledge€available€to€the€manufacturer€orÐ #l! Ðseller€at€the€time€the€product€was€placed€on€the€market,€rather€than€at€the€time€ofÐ $X" Ðinjury,€is€applicable.€Consideration€is€given€also€to€the€customary€designs,€methods,Ð ô$D # Ðstandards€and€techniques€of€manufacturing,€inspecting€and€testing€by€otherÐ à%0!$ Ðmanufacturers€or€sellers€of€similar€products.Ô#†XIXX XI8r#ÔÔ‡ XIXXXIÔ€€ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„105(b).€€In€order€to€establish€a€defect€in€a€product,€the€plaintiff€must€ð ðtraceÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€injury€to€some€specific€error€in€construction€or€design€of€the€[product]€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòFulton€v.€PfizerÐ )à$( ÐHosp.€Prods.€Group,€Inc.óó,€872€S.W.2d€908,€912€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€(quoting€òòBrowder€v.Ð |*Ì%) ÐPettigrewóó,€541€S.W.2d€402,€404€(Tenn.€1976)).€Ô#†XIXX XI„w#ÔÔ‡ XIXXXIÔÐ h+¸&* Їà  àThe€actual€design€of€the€product€does€not€have€to€be€perfect,€accident€proof,€or€incapable€ofÐ ° Ðcausing€injury€to€be€considered€non„defective.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Curtis€v.€Universal€Match€Corp.óó,€778€F.Ð œì ÐSupp.€1421,€1430€(E.D.€Tenn.€1991)€(holding€ð ðwhere€it€is€simply€shown€that€there€is€a€better,€safer,Ð ˆØ Ðor€different€design€which€would€have€averted€the€injury,€this€does€not€establish€that€there€has€beenÐ tÄ Ða€departure€from€the€required€standard€of€careðð);€òòFultonóó,€872€S.W.2d€at€912€(stating€that€aÐ `° Ðð ðmanufacturer€is€not€an€insurer€of€a€product€that€is€accident€proof,€or€incapable€of€causing€injuryðð);Ð L œ ÐòòBishop€v.€Smith€&€Nephew€Richards,€Inc.óó,€No.€02A01„9405„CV„00108,€1995€WL€99222,€at€*9Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€10,€1995)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(finding€that€aÐ $ t Ðmanufacturer€is€ð ðnot€required€to€design€a€perfect€or€accident„proof€productðð);€òòGerdts€v.€Nelsonóó,€No.Ð  ` Ð03S01„9405„CV„00190,€1995€WL€146232,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€4,€1995)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð ü L  ÐP.€11€application€filed).òòóóÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àThis€theory€stems€from€òòKerley€v.€Stanley€Worksóó,€553€S.W.2d€80,€84€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977)òòóóÔ#†XIXX XIy#ÔÔ‡ XIXXXIÔ,Ð À  Ðwherein€this€court€quoted€the€following€from€72€òòC.J.S.€Products€Liabilityóó€ðð€21:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àA€manufacturer,€.€.€.€is€not€an€insurer€of€the€product€he€designs,€and€it€is€not€requiredÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€design€adopted€be€perfect,€or€render€the€product€accident€proof,€or€incapableÐ pÀ Ðof€causing€injury,€nor€is€it€necessary€to€incorporate€the€ultimate€safety€features€in€theÐ \¬ Ðproduct.€€Hence,€a€departure€from€the€required€standard€of€care€is€not€demonstratedÐ H˜ Ðwhere€it€is€simply€shown€that€there€was€a€better,€safer,€or€different€design€whichÐ 4„ Ðwould€have€averted€the€injury.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€òòKerleyóó,€the€widow€of€a€deceased€subcontractor€sued€the€manufacturer€of€an€electric€powerÐ øH Ðdrill€for€the€wrongful€death€of€her€husband,€relying€on€the€theories€of€strict€liability€and€negligentÐ ä4 Ðdesign.€€Mr.€Kerley,€the€deceased,€had€purchased€the€drill€and€used€it€regularly€in€his€work€as€aÐ Ð  Ðsubcontractor.€€After€using€the€drill€for€about€a€year,€it€started€malfunctioning.€€Mr.€Kerley€madeÐ ¼  Ðrepairs€on€the€drill€and€it€appeared€to€be€functioning€normally€until€he€took€the€drill€up€a€twenty€footÐ ¨ø Ðladder€to€drill€holes€in€a€metal€plate€on€an€overhead€door.€€Mr.€Kerley€was€electrocuted€and€fell€fromÐ ”ä Ðthe€ladder,€striking€his€head€on€the€concrete€floor€where€he€died€immediately.€€Mrs.€Kerley€arguedÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€housing€and€the€component€parts€of€the€drill€were€negligently€designed,€which€resulted€inÐ l¼ Ðher€husbandððs€death.€€Although€Mrs.€Kerley€offered€expert€witnesses€who€testified€that€the€wiringÐ X ¨ Ðin€the€drill€was€damaged€after€being€caught€between€the€handle€and€the€housing€of€the€drill€when€Mr.Ð D!” ÐKerley€was€reassembling€it€after€repairs,€neither€witness€could€express€an€opinion€as€to€any€defectÐ 0"€  Ðin€the€design€of€the€drill€which€would€make€it€inherently€dangerous€to€the€user.€€Quoting€the€aboveÐ #l! Ðlanguage€from€C.J.S.,€this€court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€directed€verdict€for€the€drillÐ $X" Ðmanufacturer.€€Ð ô$D # Ðà  àÔ#†XIXX XIH#ÔÔ‡ XIXXXIÔÌà  àThus,€it€is€not€enough€for€Mrs.€Taylor€to€show€that€a€better,€safer,€or€different€design€to€theÐ Ì&"% Ðsubstation€would€have€prevented€her€husbandððs€death;€she€must€actually€show€that€the€product€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðunsafe€for€normal€or€anticipatable€handling.€€ð ðThe€burden€is€on€the€plaintiff€to€ððshow€that€there€isÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsomething€wrong€with€the€product.ðððð€òòFultonóó,€872€S.W.2d€at€911„12€(quoting€òòTatum€v.€Cordis€Corp.óó,Ð )à$( Ð758€F.€Supp.€457,€461€(M.D.€Tenn.€1991)).€€There€was€no€evidence€introduced€in€the€trial€court€thatÐ |*Ì%) ÐSquare€D€failed€to€follow€national€safety€standards€for€medium€voltage€equipment€in€designing€theÐ h+¸&* Ðsubstation€on€which€Mr.€Taylor€was€working.€€To€the€contrary,€the€only€expert€testimony€offered,Ð ° Ðby€Mr.€Redden,€confirmed€that€Square€D€had€followed€safety€standards€in€designing€the€substation.Ð œì ÐMr.€Redden€could€only€offer€his€opinions€on€how€the€product€could€have€been€made€safer€by€theÐ ˆØ Ðaddition€of€dead€front€panels€or€glastic;€he€offered€no€proof€of€how€the€equipment,€as€it€was€on€theÐ tÄ Ðdate€of€Mr.€Taylorððs€death,€was€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous.€€Further,€there€is€no€evidenceÐ `° Ðthat€the€product€was€malfunctioning€in€any€way.€€Consequently,€we€conclude€that€the€plaintiff€hasÐ L œ Ðfailed€to€establish€the€necessary€elements€to€sustain€a€cause€of€action€for€defective€design.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àEven€if€Ms.€Taylor€had€sufficiently€established€a€claim€to€survive€summary€judgment€on€theÐ  ` Ðissue€of€Square€Dððs€negligence,€however,€Square€D€was€nonetheless€entitled€to€summary€judgmentÐ ü L  Ðfor€the€other€reason€stated€by€the€trial€court.Ð è 8  ÐÌà@xxìàV.€€Comparative€NegligenceˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àAfter€Tennesseeððs€adoption€of€comparative€fault€in€òòMcIntyre€v.€Ballentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52Ð ˜è  Ð(Tenn.€1992),€where€both€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendant€engaged€in€negligent€conduct€thatÐ „Ô  Ðproximately€caused€the€injuries€complained€of,€the€plaintiff€cannot€recover€if€his€or€her€fault€is€equalÐ pÀ Ðto€or€greater€than€the€fault€attributable€to€the€defendant.€€òòEaton€v.€McLainóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€590Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòEatonóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€established€or€clarified€the€circumstanceÐ H˜ Ðunder€which€a€trial€court€can€determine,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€the€plaintiffððs€fault€is€equal€to€orÐ 4„ Ðgreater€than€the€defendantððs.€€The€trial€court€is€to€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÐ  p Ðin€favor€of€the€plaintiff€and€grant€the€defendant€dismissal€only€if€reasonable€minds€could€not€differÐ  \ Ðas€to€the€legal€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€at€590.€€Further,€Ð øH ÐÌà8  à[i]n€summary,€the€percentage€of€fault€assigned€to€each€party€should€be€dependentÐ Ð  Ðupon€all€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€including€such€factors€as:€(1)€the€relativeÐ ¼  Ðcloseness€of€the€causal€relationship€between€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€and€theÐ ¨ø Ðinjury€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€the€reasonableness€of€the€partyððs€conduct€in€confronting€aÐ ”ä Ðrisk,€such€as€whether€the€party€knew€of€the€risk,€or€should€have€known€of€it;€(3)€theÐ €Ð Ðextent€to€which€the€defendant€failed€to€reasonably€utilize€an€existing€opportunity€toÐ l¼ Ðavoid€the€injury€to€the€plaintiff;€(4)€the€existence€of€a€sudden€emergency€requiring€aÐ X ¨ Ðhasty€decision;€(5)€the€significance€of€what€the€party€was€attempting€to€accomplishÐ D!” Ðby€the€conduct,€such€as€an€attempt€to€save€anotherððs€life;€and€(6)€the€partyððs€particularÐ 0"€  Ðcapacities,€such€as€age,€maturity,€training,€education,€and€so€forth.€€Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€592.€€Thus,Ô#†XIXX XIΈ#Ô€ð ð[i]f€the€court€determines€that€all€reasonable€jurors€would€find€the€plaintiffððs€faultÐ ô$D # Ðwas€fifty€percent€or€more,€it€must€grant€summary€judgment€because€when€the€plaintiffððs€fault€is€fiftyÐ à%0!$ Ðpercent€or€more€he€or€she€can€not€recover€and€there€is€nothing€for€the€jury€to€decide.ðð€€òòCarr€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐOzburn„Hessey€Storage€Co.óó,€No.€01„A„01„9511„CV„00527,€1996€WL€383295,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¸'#& ÐJul.€10,€1996)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àSummary€judgments€enable€courts€to€resolve€cases€on€dispositive€legal€issues.€€SummaryÐ |*Ì%) Ðjudgment€is€proper€in€virtually€any€civil€case€that€can€be€resolved€on€the€basis€of€legal€issues€alone.Ð h+¸&* ÐòòFruge€v.€Doeóó,€952€S.W.2d€408,€410€(Tenn.€1997);€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);òòÐ ° ÐChurch€v.€Peralesóó,€39€S.W.3d€149,€156€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€But,€summary€judgment€should€beÐ œì Ðgranted€only€when€the€undisputed€facts,€and€the€inferences€reasonably€drawn€from€the€undisputedÐ ˆØ Ðfacts,€support€one€conclusion€„€that€the€party€seeking€the€summary€judgment€is€entitled€to€a€judgmentÐ tÄ Ðas€a€matter€of€law.òò€€Webber€v.€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.óó,€49€S.W.3d€265,€269€(Tenn.€2001);Ð `° ÐòòBrown€v.€Birman€Managed€Care,€Inc.óó,€42€S.W.3d€62,€66€(Tenn.€2001);òò€Goodloe€v.€Stateóó,òò€óó36€S.W.3dÐ L œ Ð62,€65€(Tenn.€2001);€òòÔ‡ XIXXXIÔStaples€v.€CBL€&Ô#†XIXX XI`Ÿ#ÔÔ‡ XIXXXIÔ€Associatesóó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€88€(Tenn.€2000)Ô#†XIXX XI²Ÿ#Ôòòóó.òòÐ 8 ˆ ÐóóÔ‡ XIXXXIÔÌÔ#†XIXX XIC #Ôà  àSummary€judgments€enjoy€no€presumption€of€correctness€on€appeal.€òòScott€v.€AshlandÐ  ` ÐHealthcare€Ctr.,€Inc.óó,€49€S.W.3d€281,€284€(Tenn.€2001);€òòPenley€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,€31€S.W.3dÐ ü L  Ð181,€183€(Tenn.€2000).€€Accordingly,€appellate€courts€must€make€a€fresh€determination€that€theÐ è 8  Ðrequirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€satisfied.€€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88;€òòHunter€v.€Brownóó,Ð Ô$  Ð955€S.W.2d€49,€50„51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòMason€v.€Seatonóó,€942€S.W.2d€470,€472€(Tenn.€1997).€€We€mustÐ À  Ðconsider€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„moving€party,€and€we€must€resolve€allÐ ¬ü  Ðinferences€in€the€non„moving€partyððs€favor.€€òòDoe€v.€HCA€Health€Servs.,€Inc.óó,€46€S.W.3d€191,€196Ð ˜è  Ð(Tenn.€2001);€òòMemphis€Hous.€Auth.€v.€Thompsonóó,€38€S.W.3d€504,€507€(Tenn.€2001).€€WhenÐ „Ô  Ðreviewing€the€evidence,€we€must€determine€first€whether€factual€disputes€exist.€€If€a€factual€disputeÐ pÀ Ðexists,€we€must€then€determine€whether€the€fact€is€material€to€the€claim€or€defense€upon€which€theÐ \¬ Ðsummary€judgment€is€predicated€and€whether€the€disputed€fact€creates€a€genuine€issue€for€trial.€Ð H˜ ÐòòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€214;€òòRutherford€v.€Polar€Tank€Trailer,€Inc.óó,€978€S.W.2d€102,€104€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð 4„ ÐApp.€1998).€€Ô‡ XIXXXIÔThen,€we,€like€the€trial€court,€must€review€the€evidence€presented€at€the€summaryÐ  p Ðjudgment€stage€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„moving€party,€here€Ms.€Taylor,€afford€allÐ  \ Ðreasonable€inferences€to€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854Ð øH ÐS.W.2d€865,€870€(Tenn.€1993);€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.Ô#†XIXX XI=¦#ÔÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€real€factual€dispute€about€how€the€accident€herein€happened.€€The€undisputedÐ ¼  Ðfacts€show€that€Mr.€Taylor,€an€experienced€electrician,€trained€multiple€times€in€the€proper€safetyÐ ¨ø Ðprocedures,€disobeyed€the€orders€of€his€supervisor€by€choosing€not€to€wait€for€assistance€in€the€lockÐ ”ä Ðout/tag€out€of€the€substation.€€The€equipment€carried€a€warning€sign.€€There€is€no€dispute€that€if€theÐ €Ð Ðsubstation€had€been€locked€out/tagged€out€or€de„energized€Mr.€Taylor€would€not€have€beenÐ l¼ Ðelectrocuted.€€There€is€no€allegation€that€anything€in€the€design€of€the€equipment€would€haveÐ X ¨ Ðprevented€this€simple€routine€safety€precaution.€€Mr.€Taylorððs€own€decision€to€commence€workÐ D!” Ðwithout€following€the€safety€procedures€led€to€his€death.€€While€we€certainly€acknowledge€theÐ 0"€  ÐÔ‡ XIXXXIÔtragedy€of€the€situation,€there€is€no€escaping€the€fact€that€the€€evidence€clearly€demonstrates€thatÐ #l! Ðreasonable€minds€could€not€differ€as€to€the€legal€conclusions€that€must€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.Ð $X" ÐThe€trial€court€properly€granted€summary€judgment€for€Square€D€because€Mr.€Taylorððs€negligenceÐ ô$D # Ðwas€clearly€greater€than€any€negligence€on€the€part€of€Square€D.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÐ à%0!$ Ðaffirmed€and€remanded.€€The€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Susan€Taylor.Ô#†XIXX XIÚ«#ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à__________________________________€Ð|*Ì%)(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ h+¸&* Ð