WPCxN  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\88 0@: D3:w@: 0J;; 0T; 0^; 0h7< 0r< 0|= 0= 0> 1u> 0d?U6|?B)?DC? AM@U*k@@?ABv~EvG AOL"M 0DM D/,N B[NV& 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)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|xA<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   df|$$(G.2$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKMcDONALDLUFKINNASSIOSCAPPARELLATARWATERTILLMANLONGMIREMILLIGANGoodwinRidings VolzLedesSnyder LTG LufttechnischeWendellTuggleBlackmonTenn.Crim.AppFiberglas("$    GGGG'dxd -.e/D0Ӏ1Ӏ2U34 5Ӏ6Ӏ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  WXYZ[\]^ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dhhhh7Border 1ddOiC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#g  kk   YYY FILEDkX July6,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.kAppellateCourtClerk  5 F!  #d#g  I$g         Mr.Goodwindiedduringthependencyofthiscaseanditwasrevivedinthenameofhissurvivingspouse.   F!#d#g  I$g         ItdoesnotappearfromtherecordthattheclaimsagainstDefendantsotherthanPittsburghCorningandOwensCorninghavebeenadjudicated.However,inaresponsetoaletterbytheClerkofthisCourt,counselforthePlaintiffassurestheCourtthatordershavebeenenteredintheTrialCourtadjudicatingallclaimsoftheotherDefendants.Consequently,weshalltreatthisappealasanappealofrightunderRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva OC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . g    7zXXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  h u` RjliA1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLEJOYWALLS,Individuallyand@ @ ) KNOXCOUNTY asSurvivingSpouseof  ) 03A019707CV00269DecedentWENDELLM.GOODWIN@ )@ ) PlaintiffAppellant@ ) @ ) v.@ ) HON.DALEWORKMAN,@ ) JUDGEACandS,INC.,etal.  @ )      @ )  DefendantsAppellees@ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDEDBRUCEHILLandMIKEG.NASSIOSOFKNOXVILLE;JOHNA.DAYandDONALDCAPPARELLAOFNASHVILLEFORAPPELLANTDWIGHTE.TARWATER,THOMASA.BICKERS,ANDREWR.TILLMANandROBINK.LONGMIREOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLEEOWENSCORNINGKATHYK.CONDOOFPITTSBURGH,PAandF.SCOTTMILLIGANOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLEEPITTSBURGHCORNINGCORPORATION    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  ThissuitwasinitiatedbyPlaintiffAppellant,WendellGoodwin, m   כagainstDefendantsAppellees,PittsburghCorningCorporation,OwensCorningFiberglasCorporation,andanumberofotherDefendants, n   כseekingdamagesbecauseofanillnessMr.GoodwincontractedspecificallyastomachcancerknownasperitonealmesotheliomaresultingfromhisoccupationalexposuretoasbestosproductsmanufacturedanddistributedbytheDefendants,includingPittsburghCorningandOwensCorning.TheTrialCourt,inresponsetotheanswerssuppliedbythejurythroughspecialinterrogatorieshereinaftersetout,enteredajudgmentinfavoroftheDefendantsbecausethePlaintiff'sclaimwasbarredbytheapplicablestatuteofrepose,T.C.A.2928103(a).  ThePlaintiffappeals,raisingthefollowingissues:    I. WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDBYALLOWINGDEFENDANTSTO(1)INTRODUCEEVIDENCEOFFAULTAGAINSTNUMEROUSNONPARTYMANUFACTURERSOFASBESTOSAND(2)ARGUETHATFAULTSHOULDBEASSIGNEDTOTHOSENONPARTIES,WHEREPLAINTIFFHADNOCAUSEOFACTIONAGAINSTTHOSENONPARTIESII. WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDBYFAILINGTOGRANTPLAINTIFF'SMOTIONFORADIRECTEDVERDICTTOSTRIKEDEFENDANTS'AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSEOFCOMPARATIVEFAULTWHENDEFENDANTSFAILEDTOESTABLISHTHATTHEPRODUCTSOFNONPARTYASBESTOSMANUFACTURERSWEREUNREASONABLYDANGEROUSORDEFECTIVEORCAUSEDTHEDECEDENT'SINJURIESANDDEATHIII. WHETHERTHETRIALCOURTERREDINDENYINGPLAINTIFF'SMOTIONINLIMINETOEXCLUDEPROOFTHATDEFENDANTSHADCOMPLIEDWITHOSHAREGULATIONSIV. WHETHERTHETENYEARPRODUCTSLIABILITYSTATUTEOFREPOSESHOULDNOTBEAPPLIEDTOEXTINGUISHEXISTINGBUTUNDISCOVEREDCAUSESOFACTIONARISINGFROMPRODUCTSCAUSINGLATENTDISEASE,WHENTHELEGISLATUREHASEVIDENCEDNOCLEARINTENTTOAPPLYTHESTATUTERETROACTIVELY      Mr.Goodwinbeganworkingwithproductscontainingasbestosin1959,primarilyinapplyingasbestoscontaininginsulationmaterialstopipesonconstructionprojects.Thisrequiredhimtocutandsawthematerialforfittingaroundthepipes.HeworkedwiththesematerialsuntilhewasdiagnosedwithcanceroftheabdomeninMayof1991,justfourmonthsbeforehisdeathfromthisdisease.TheproofastowhetherMr.GoodwinwasexposedtoanyproductsmanufacturedbytheDefendantsandsoldforuseorconsumptionafterJune30,1969,iscontested.  Thejury'sanswertothequestionswasfavorabletobothDefendants,which,ifthestatuteofreposeabovementionedisvalid,wouldrequireaffirmanceofthejudgmentunlessaprejudicialerroroccurredduringthecourseofthetrial,asinsistedbythreeofthePlaintiff'sfourissuesonappeal.  Thequestionspropoundedtothejuryanditsanswerareasfollows:    1. WasanyexposureofWendellGoodwintoasbestoscontainingproductsmanufacturedbyOwensCorningCorporationandsoldforuseorconsumptionafterJune30,1969asubstantialcontributingcauseofWendellGoodwin'smesothelioma?    Answer򀀀No(YesorNo)2. WasanyexposureofWendellGoodwintoasbestoscontainingproductsmanufacturedbyPittsburghCorningCorporationandsoldforuseorconsumptionafterJune39,1969asubstantialcontributingcauseofWendellGoodwin'smesothelioma?    Answer򀀀No(YesorNo) (Ifyouransweris"No"tobothQuestionsNo.1andNo.2,donotansweranyfurtherquestions.Ifyouransweris"No"toeitherQuestionNo.1orNo.2donotansweranyfurtherquestionsastothatDefendant.)       Aproposofthefirsttwoissues,counselforthePlaintiffinsiststhatMr.GoodwinwasdeniedafairtrialbecausetheCourtpermittedtheintroductionofevidencerelatingtononpartydefendantswhenanyactionagainstthemwasbarredbythestatuteofrepose,andbecausetherewasnoproofintherecordtoshowthattheasbestosmanufacturedbythemwasunreasonablydangerousordefectiveorcausedtheDecedent'sinjuriesanddeath.  CounselforthePlaintiffinsists,undertheauthorityofRidingsv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79(Tenn.1996),thatitwasnotpropertoassessfaultunderourcomparativenegligencedoctrinetothosenonpartydefendants.  Ontheotherhand,theDefendantsinsistthatthePlaintiffisreadingsRidingstoobroadlyandciteasauthorityVolzv.Ledes,895S.W.2d677(Tenn.1995).TheDefendantsalsorelyuponamorerecentopinionofourSupremeCourt,Snyderv.LTGLufttechnischeGmbH,955S.W.2d252(Tenn.1997),whichholdsthatalthoughfaultmaynotbeapportionedtoimmunedefendants,itmaybeconsideredindeterminingthequestionofcausation.  Whatevertheresolutionofthecompetingcontentionsmaybe,itisnotnecessaryforustomakethisdeterminationinresolvingissuesoneandtwo.WereachthisconclusionbecauseifthejurorsfollowedtheCourt'sinstructions,anditispresumedthattheydid,Statev.Blackmon,701S.W.2d228(Tenn.Crim.App.1985),uponansweringquestionsoneandtwotheirworkwascompleteandtheywouldneverhaveconsideredtheevidenceassailedbyissuesoneandtwo.Thus,error,ifany,inadmittingtheevidenceorfailingtochargethejuryappropriatelywasharmless,ascontemplatedbyRule36oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.  Beforeleavingtheseissues,weagreethatwherenonegligenceisshownonthepartofnondefendantthirdparties,thejudgeshouldchargethejurythatnofaultmaybeapportionedtothem.̀  Astoissuethree,itistruethatcaselawsupportscounselforthePlaintiff'sinsistencethatevidenceoftheDefendants'compliancewiththeOSHAregulationswaserroneous.Tugglev.RaymondCorporation,868S.W.2d621(Tenn.App.1992).This,however,wouldonlybecomerelevantifthejuryhadansweredyestoquestionsoneandtwo,andthereafterfoundthattheDefendantswerenotguiltyofnegligence.Asalreadynoted,inthecaseatbar,thejurorswerespecificallyinstructedthatiftheyanswerednotoquestionsoneandtwo,theyshouldnotanswerfurtherquestions.Again,ifthejurorsfollowedtheinstructionsoftheTrialCourtwhich,asalsoalreadynoted,itispresumedthattheydid,theyneverreachedtheissueoftheDefendants'negligence.Thus,theadmissionoftheOSHAevidencewasalsoharmlesserror.  OnFebruary23,1998,issuefourwasresolvedagainstthePlaintiff'scontentionbytheSupremeCourtdenyingtheapplicationforappealinthecaseofBowmanv.ABestProductsCo.,Inc.,atobereportedopinionofthisCourt,filedinKnoxvilleonAugust27,1997.AtthetimethePlaintifffiledherbrief,anapplicationforpermissiontoappealbytheplaintiffinBowmanwasstillpendingbeforetheSupremeCourtandcounselforthePlaintiffcandidlyconcedethatthisissuewasraisedasaprecautionarymeasureshouldtheSupremeCourtacceptandreversetheholdinginBowman.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstthePlaintiffandhersureties.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.________________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.