ÿWPC‘V X# àUNë %9 0D? 0`ƒbãU>ë4)= 0ˆL 0DÔ 0J 0Tb 0^¶ 0h 0r| 0|î 0†j UPð 0@ 1uÐ U,E 0dq BÕ U,ò U> \ w \ 0`f ÆÆ AOŒ 0DÛ 0@ D3_ D/’ BÁƒÞU6aB)—DCÀ AMU*Pzg‘ÿø÷ j 1ˆ"v¹#¼/4ë79¼;‚Ñ<0S?åƒC}hE åF‡ïHÊvMv~@OvÓ¾P˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý- ù-<èÀ( 9 &Courier Regular»\2 Ø'ç-3|x‡(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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  Ô&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Romanƒ(83‚ª$¢¢Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5587:Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd;;'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd yÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d>>>>7Border 1dd58@Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ4"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ€BÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€BXÔó óÌò òÔ€B¼ÔJanuaryÏ29,Ï1996ó óÔ€BXÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€/Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€/ÂÔÔ€BÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€/ÔÔ€/XÔ ]Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔThe€plaintiff€also€names€"Truckstops€of€America"€as€aÏdefendant;€however,€the€defendants€deny€that€there€is€anÏentity€known€by€that€name.Ì õÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€14.01.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€29„11„101€to€29„11„106€(1980).€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔòòMcIntyreóó€did€not€discuss€rights€to€indemnity.Ì ` Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=Ôò òComparative€fault„„Joinder€of€third€partyÏdefendants.„„ó ó(a)€In€civil€actions€where€comparative€fault€isÏor€becomes€an€issue,€if€a€defendant€named€in€an€originalÏcomplaint€initiating€a€suit€filed€within€the€applicableÏstatute€of€limitations,€or€named€in€an€amended€complaint€filedÏwithin€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations,€alleges€in€anÏanswer€or€amended€answer€to€the€original€or€amended€complaintÏthat€a€person€not€a€party€to€the€suit€caused€or€contributed€toÏthe€injury€or€damage€for€which€the€plaintiff€seeks€recovery,Ïand€if€the€plaintiff's€cause€or€causes€of€action€against€suchÏperson€would€be€barred€by€any€applicable€statute€ofÏlimitations€but€for€the€operation€of€this€section,€theÏplaintiff€may,€within€ninety€(90)€days€of€the€filing€of€theÏfirst€answer€or€first€amended€answer€alleging€such€person'sÏfault,€either:ÌÌà à(l)€Amend€the€complaint€to€add€such€person€as€a€defendantÏpursuant€to€Rule€l5€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÏand€cause€process€to€be€issued€for€that€person;€orÌÌà à(2)€Institute€a€separate€action€against€that€person€byÏfiling€a€summons€and€complaint.€€If€the€plaintiff€elects€toÏproceed€under€this€section€by€filing€a€separate€action,€theÏcomplaint€so€filed€shall€not€be€considered€an€"originalÏcomplaint€initiating€the€suit"€or€"an€amended€complaint"€forÏpurposes€of€this€subsection.ÌÌà à(b)€A€cause€of€action€brought€within€ninety€(90)€daysÏpursuant€to€subsection€(a)€shall€not€be€barred€by€any€statuteÏof€limitations.€€This€section€shall€not€extend€any€applicableÏstatute€of€repose,€nor€shall€this€section€permit€the€plaintiffÏto€maintain€an€action€against€a€person€when€such€an€action€isÏbarred€by€an€applicable€statute€of€repose.ÌÌà à(c)€This€section€shall€neither€shorten€nor€lengthen€theÏapplicable€statute€of€limitations€for€any€cause€of€action,Ïother€than€as€provided€in€subsection€(a).ÌÌà à(d)€The€provisions€of€subsections€(a)€and€(b)€shall€notÏapply€to€any€civil€action€commenced€pursuant€to€ðð€28„1„105,Ïexcept€an€action€originally€commenced€in€general€sessionsÏcourt€and€subsequently€recommenced€in€circuit€or€chanceryÏcourt.ÌÌà à(e)€This€section€shall€not€limit€the€right€of€anyÏdefendant€to€allege€in€an€answer€or€amended€answer€that€aÏperson€not€a€party€to€the€suit€caused€or€contributed€to€theÏinjury€for€which€the€plaintiff€seeks€recovery.ÌÌà à(f)€For€purposes€of€this€section,€"person"€means€anyÏindividual€or€legal€entity.Ì 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔòòSeeóó€discussion€of€strict€liability€òòinfraóó€pp.€____€[slipÏop.€pp.€23„26].Ì lÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔPreviously,€the€terms€"comparative€negligence"€andÏ"comparative€fault"€have€been€used€somewhat€interchangeably€toÏinclude€the€principles€governing€the€apportioning€of€damagesÏbetween€a€plaintiff€and€defendants,€as€well€as€betweenÏdefendants.€€€òòSeeóó€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52,€56Ï(Tenn.€1992)€(adopts€a€system€of€"comparative€fault"€in€placeÏof€the€common€law€doctrine€of€"contributory€negligence"€toÏdetermine€whether€a€plaintiff€may€recover€from€a€defendant);€ÏòòCook€v.€Spinnaker's€of€Rivergateóó,€846€S.W.2d€810,€811€(Tenn.Ï1993)€(finding€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€previously€raiseÏthe€issue€of€whether€the€doctrine€of€"comparative€negligence"Ïapplied€in€determining€whether€the€defendant€was€liable€to€theÏplaintiff);€òòBervoets€v.€Harde€Ralls€Pontiac„Olds,€Inc.óó,€891ÏS.W.2d€905,€908€(Tenn.1994)€(actions€for€contribution€betweenÏdefendants€will€be€tried€under€the€principles€of€"comparativeÏfault").€€However,€each€of€these€terms€may€be€used€to€expressÏa€distinct€meaning.ÌÌà àThe€term€"comparative€negligence"€is€defined€as€theÏmeasure€of€the€plaintiff's€negligence€in€percentage€terms€usedÏfor€the€purpose€of€reducing€the€plaintiff's€recovery€from€theÏdefendant€in€proportion€to€the€percentage€of€negligenceÏattributed€to€the€plaintiff.€€It€encompasses€the€system€ofÏdetermining€the€damages€attributable€to€the€plaintiff€asÏagainst€the€defendants€which€this€Court€adopted€when€itÏabandoned€the€"outmoded€and€unjust€common€law€doctrine€ofÏcontributory€negligence."€€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2dÏat€56;€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€John€Scott€Hickman,€Note,€òòEfficiency,ÏFairness,€and€Common€Sense:€€The€Case€for€One€Action€as€toÏPercentage€of€Fault€in€Comparative€Negligence€JurisdictionsÏthat€have€Abolished€or€Modified€Joint€and€Several€Liabilityóó,Ï48€Vand.€L.€Rev.€739,€741€n.€9€(1995)€(quoting€òòSchneiderÏNat'l,€Inc.€v.€Holland€Hitch€Co.óó,€843€P.2d€561,€566€n.€4€(Wyo.Ï1992)).€€The€term€"comparative€fault"€is€defined€as€thoseÏprinciples€which€encompass€the€determination€of€how€toÏ"apportion€damage€recovery€among€multiple€or€joint€tortfeasorsÏaccording€to€the€percentage€of€fault€attributed€to€thoseÏactors€after€reduction€for€the€plaintiff's€percentage€ofÏnegligence."€€òòSchneider€Nat'l,€Inc.€v.€Holland€Hitch€Co.óó,€843ÏP.2d€at€566€n.€4.€ÌÌà àThe€rationale€behind€this€distinction€is€that€negligenceÏis€generally€the€only€theory€by€which€the€plaintiff's€damagesÏcan€be€reduced;€whereas,€the€defendants'€liability€may€beÏbased€on€theories€of€liability€other€than€negligence.ÌÌà àIt€is€recognized€that€there€are€problems€with€the€use€ofÏthese€terms€and€that€scholars€have€suggested€alternativeÏapproaches:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€Court€[in€òòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó]€usesÏthe€term€"comparative€fault,"€which€isÏadequate€for€negligence€actions€butÏinappropriate€for€strict€liabilityÏactions,€in€which€the€conceptuallyÏconfused€term€"comparative€causation"Ïsometimes€is€substituted.€€The€best€term,Ïfor€both€negligence€and€strict€liabilityÏactions,€is€"comparative€responsibility."ÌÌRichard€W.€Wright,€òòThe€Logic€and€Fairness€of€Joint€and€SeveralÏLiabilityóó,€23€Mem.€St.€U.€L.€Rev.€45€n.€2€(1992);€€ÌÌà8 àThe€term€"comparative€fault"€will€be€used€inÏinstances€because€it€more€appropriately€reflectsÏwhat€the€courts€are€doing€when€they€come€to€addressÏthe€interface€between€plaintiffs'€fault€and€so„called€strict€liability.ÌÌVictor€E.€Schwartz,€òòComparative€Negligenceóó,€ðð€11„1€(3d€ed.Ï1994).ÌÌà àNonetheless,€the€usefulness€of€the€terms€in€discussing€Ïthe€issues€justifies€their€adoption€despite€their€limitations.€ÏFor€the€purposes€of€this€opinion,€the€term€"comparativeÏnegligence"€will€refer€to€the€system€of€apportioningÏnegligence€between€a€plaintiff€and€the€defendants,€and€theÏterm€"comparative€fault"€will€refer€not€only€to€the€system€ofÏapportioning€liability€between€tortfeasors,€but€also€to€theÏset€of€principles€governing€the€analysis€of€liability€inÏactions€grounded€in€tort.Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòÔ€=ÔSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòWhitehead€v.€Toyota€Motor€Corp.óó,€897€S.W.2dÏ684€(Tenn.€1995)€(comparative€negligence€principles€applied€inÏapportioning€damages€between€a€plaintiff€and€defendants€inÏstrict€liability€actions);€òòVolz€v.€Ledesóó,€895€S.W.2d€677,€680Ï(Tenn.€1995)€(damages€apportioned€among€defendants€accordingÏto€fault€even€if€one€of€the€defendants€is€insolvent);€òòEaton€v.ÏMcLainóó,€891€S.W.2d€€587€(Tenn.€1994)€(prior€common€lawÏdoctrines€of€remote€contributory€negligence,€last€clear€chanceÏand€implied€assumption€of€risk€have€become€subsumed€byÏcomparative€negligence);€òòPerez€v.€McConkeyóó,€872€S.W.2d€897Ï(Tenn.€1994)€(implied€assumption€of€risk€is€no€longer€anÏabsolute€bar€to€recovery).ÌÔ€/Ô Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔTruckstops€did€not€plead€contributory€negligence€in€thisÏcase.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=Ôà8 àAt€any€time€after€commencement€of€theÏaction€a€defending€party,€as€a€third„partyÏplaintiff,€may€cause€a€summons€andÏcomplaint€to€be€served€upon€a€person€not€aÏparty€to€the€action€who€is€or€may€beÏliable€to€him€for€all€or€part€of€theÏplaintiff's€claim€against€him.€.€.€.ÌÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€l4.0l.Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔThe€Court€also€used€the€term€"obsolete"€to€indicate€thatÏthe€doctrines€of€remote€contributory€negligence€and€last€clearÏchance€were€subsumed€into€the€doctrine€of€comparativeÏnegligence.€€òòMcIntyreóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€57.€€Ì xÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€=ÔUnder€a€"pure€comparative€fault"€analysis,€the€co„defendant€may€recover€even€if€his€negligence€is€greater€thanÏthe€negligence€of€the€other€tortfeasors.€€Liability€isÏapportioned€solely€based€on€the€percentage€of€causalÏnegligence,€or€fault,€òòCf.óó€òòMcIntyreóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€57;€1€J.€D.ÏLee€&€Barry€A.€Lindahl,€òòModern€Tort€Lawóó,€ðð€12.06€(rev'd€ed.Ï1994);€Comparative€Negligence/Fault,€1€Prod.€Liab.€Rep.€(CCH)Ïðð€3030€(Apr.€1994).Ì &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔThe€Court€has€not,€as€stated€in€the€dissent,€Ïdisapproved€of€the€doctrine€of€joint€and€several€liability€òòinÏa€general€senseóó;€òòseeóó€òòinfraóó€p.€_____€[slip€op.€dissent€at€p.Ï2];€it€has€disapproved€joint€and€several€liability€òòin€aÏparticular€senseóó,€that€is,€where€the€defendants€were€chargedÏwith€separate,€independent€acts€of€negligence.€€ThisÏparticular€limitation€on€joint€and€several€liability€was€theÏbasis€for€the€Court's€decisions€in€òòBervoets€v.€Harde€RallsÏPontiac„Olds,€Inc.óó€891€S.W.2d€at€905;€òòWhitehead€v.€ToyotaÏMotor€Corp.óó,€897€S.W.2d€at€684;€and€òòVolz€v.€Ledesóó,€895€S.W.2dÏat€677.€€Joint€and€several€liability€need€not€beÏ"resurrected,"€òòseeóó€òòinfraóó€p.€_____€(dissent),€[slip€op.€dissentÏat€p.€5],€because€it€has€continued€to€be€an€integral€part€ofÏthe€law,€except€where€specifically€abrogated.Ì ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔThe€dissent's€insistence€that€each€defendant€in€anÏaction€for€strict€liability€be€liable€to€the€plaintiffÏaccording€to€its€òòseparateóó€"fault"€would€impose€upon€theÏplaintiff€the€burden€of€proving€each€defendant€was€negligent,Ïthus€abolishing€strict€liability.Ì sÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔThe€strict€liability€action€against€Michael€cannot€beÏmaintained€unless€one€of€the€conditions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ29„28„106(b)€(Supp.€1994)€is€satisfied.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔWhereas€contribution€has€been€utilized€in€transitionalÏcases€as€a€means€of€attributing€liability€according€to€fault,Ïcontribution€and€indemnity€will€continue€to€be€the€effectiveÏmeans€of€apportioning€liability€among€tortfeasors€jointly€andÏseverally€liable€in€cases€arising€under€comparative€fault.€€Ì }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔThe€following€special€verdict€form,€as€adopted€to€theÏspecific€allegations€of€the€case,€may€be€used€in€cases€whereÏliability€is€predicated€upon€strict€products€liability€andÏother€theories€such€as€negligence:€€Ìà@ àÌà8 à€€€€€Using€100€percent€as€the€total€combined€harm,Ïfind€from€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€theÏpercentage€of€the€plaintiff's€injuries€or€damagesÏproximately€caused€by:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àThe€defective€or€unreasonablyà à€€€Ïdangerous€product€(Defendants€€€ÏA€and€B)à à_____€%Ìà àà àà àDefendant€Xà à_____€%Ìà àà àà àDefendant€Y€€€€_____€%Ìà àà àà àPlaintiffà àà à_____€%ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€(Total€must€equal€100%)ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSignature€of€Foreman€€€€€€€€Ì ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔAlthough€the€allocation€of€liability€in€this€case€willÏbe€consistent€with€the€doctrine€of€comparative€fault,€theÏdischarge€of€the€separate€liabilities€and€the€attendingÏconsequences€may€depend€upon€the€collectibility€of€the€awardsÏmade.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€..X„d&ÓÑ#€..Xd#ÑÔ€/ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÖ€<ÖÑ  ÑÑ è ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€HLXXdÖXXdì7ÑÔ€=Ôà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJanuary€29,Ï1996à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THEÏSUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àATÏNASHVILLEÌÌÙ€5ÙßL€AC@;+'h|Zü׿. `€€LßÌÌJOSEPH€CARL€OWENS,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌTRUCKSTOPS€OF€AMERICA,à àà à(ÌTRUCKSTOPS€OF€AMERICA,€INC.,à à(ÌAND€B.P.€AMERICA,€INC.,à àà à(€ÏDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendants/Third„Partyà à(€ÏHon.€Marietta€M.€Shipley,Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à à(€ÏJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€ÏNo.€0lS0l„9408„CV„00077Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌB.€MICHAEL€DESIGN,€INC.,€ANDà à(ÌVITRO€PRODUCTS,€INC.,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àThird„Party€Defendants/à à(Ìà àAppellees.à àà àà à(ÌÌÌÌÌòòForÏPlaintiff/Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòForÍDefendants/Third„PartyóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòPlaintiffs/Appelleesóó:à àÌSteve€NorthÌMark€Northà àà àà àà àà àBarry€L.€Howardà àÌNashvilleà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€H.€JohnsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGracey,€Ruth,€Howard,€TateÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€&€SowellÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌÌÒ € ÒÒ h ÒÓ` °X'Ø'XÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€Third„Party€Defendants/óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòAppelleesóó:à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMartin€D.€HolmesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àStewart,€Estes€&€DonnellÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€M.€Bryant,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àW.€Bryan€BrooksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBrewer,€Krause€&€BrooksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌÌà@ àò òòòÔ€=„ÔÔ€ÔòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔóóÔ€=Ôóóó óÌÑ , ÑÌJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌMODIFIED€AND€CASE€REMANDED€TOÌTRIAL€COURT.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€REID,€J.ÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÓÓà àThis€interlocutory€appeal€presents€for€determinationÏthe€principles€of€comparative€fault€applicable€to€theÏassessment€of€liability€among€joint€tortfeasors€and€theÏapplication€of€those€principles€to€this€transitional€case,€inÏwhich€the€cause€of€action€accrued€prior€to€the€decision€inÏòòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992).€€TheÏdecision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€modified€and€the€case€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPleadingsó óóóÌÌà àIn€the€original€complaint,€the€plaintiff,€JosephÏCarl€Owens,€sued€Truckstops€of€America,€Inc.€and€B.€P.ÏAmerica,€Inc.€("Truckstops")× ƒD ××  ×€for€damages€for€personalÏinjuries.€€The€complaint€alleges€that€the€plaintiff€sustainedÏpersonal€injuries€on€September14,€1987,€when€a€stool€occupiedÏby€him€in€a€restaurant€owned€and€operated€by€Truckstops€broke,Ïcausing€the€plaintiff€to€fall€to€the€floor.€€The€complaint,Ïwhich€was€filed€on€September€14,€l988,€the€last€day€permittedÏby€the€statute€of€limitations,€charges€that€Truckstops€wasÏnegligent€in€that€it€failed€to€maintain€the€stool€in€a€safeÏcondition€and€it€failed€to€warn€the€plaintiff€of€the€danger€ofÏusing€the€stool.€ÌÌà àTruckstops€responded€to€the€complaint€with€a€generalÏdenial€of€negligence€and€causation€and€the€"affirmativeÏdefense"€that€the€proximate€cause€of€any€injury€sustained€byÍthe€plaintiff€was€the€acts€of€unidentified€third€parties€forÏwhich€Truckstops€was€not€liable.€€ÌÌà àOn€August€2,€l989,€Truckstops€moved€the€court€thatÏit€be€allowed€to€file€a€third„party€complaint€against€VitroÏProducts,€Inc.€("Vitro"),€which€designed€and€manufactured€theÏstool,€and€B.€Michael€Design,€Inc.€("Michael"),€which€sold€theÏstool€to€Truckstops.× ƒE ××  ×€€Based€on€allegations€of€negligence,Ïstrict€liability€in€tort,€and€breach€of€implied€warranty€ofÏmerchantability,€Truckstops€asserts€in€the€third„partyÏcomplaint€that€it€is€entitled€to€indemnity€from€Vitro€andÏMichael€for€any€judgment€that€may€be€rendered€againstÏTruckstops€and,€alternatively,€it€is€entitled€to€òòproóó€òòrataóóÏcontribution€by€Vitro€and€Michael,€pursuant€to€the€UniformÏContribution€Among€Tort„Feasors€Act.× ƒF ××  ×€€The€motion€was€allowedÏon€August23,€1989.€€ÌÌà àThis€was€the€status€of€the€pleadings€on€May4,€1992,Íthe€date€on€which€the€decision€of€this€Court€in€òòMcIntyre€v.ÏBalentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992),€was€released.€€ÌÌà àOn€December23,€1992,€more€than€three€years€afterÏTruckstops€had€filed€its€third„party€complaint,€Vitro€filed€aÏmotion€to€dismiss€the€third„party€complaint€on€the€ground€thatÏthe€rights€of€indemnity€and€contribution€among€tortfeasorsÏwere€abolished€by€the€decision€in€òòMcIntyreóó.× ƒG ××  ×€€ÌÌà àOn€June2,€1993,€Truckstops€moved€that€its€answer€beÏamended€to€assert€that€Vitro€and€Michael€may€have€caused€orÏcontributed€to€the€plaintiff's€alleged€injuries€and€resultingÏdamages.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€then,€on€June€4,€l993,€relying€uponÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119€(1994),× ƒH ××  ×€which€was€enacted€by€theÍlegislature€on€May13,€1993,€one€year€after€the€decision€inÏòòMcIntyreóó,€filed€a€motion€to€amend€his€complaint€to€add€VitroÏand€Michael€as€defendants€to€the€original€suit.€€The€amendedÏcomplaint€alleges€that€Vitro€designed,€manufactured,€and€soldÏthe€stool€to€Michael;€that€Vitro€was€negligent€in€the€designÏand€manufacture€of€the€stool;€and€that€the€stool€was€aÏdangerous€product.€€The€amended€complaint€also€alleges€thatÏMichael€sold€the€stool€to€Truckstops€and€installed€the€stoolÏin€Truckstops'€restaurant;€that€Michael€was€negligent€inÏinstalling€the€stool€and€in€failing€to€warn€that€the€stool€wasÏdangerous;€and€that€Michael€breached€an€implied€warranty€ofÏmerchantability.€€Vitro€and€Michael€opposed€the€motion€toÏamend€the€complaint€on€the€grounds€that€Section€20„1„119€wasÏnot€applicable€to€this€case,€and€therefore,€the€plaintiff'sÏcause€of€action€against€them€was€barred€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations,€laches,€and€estoppel.€€The€motion€to€amend€theÏcomplaint€was€granted.€€ÌÌà àOn€interlocutory€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule9,ÍTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Practice,€the€Court€of€AppealsÏfound€that€the€decision€in€òòMcIntyreóó€required€that€Truckstops'Ïthird„party€claim€against€Vitro€and€Michael€for€contributionÏbe€dismissed,€but€the€court€refused€to€dismiss€the€claim€forÏindemnity€based€on€breach€of€implied€warranty€ofÏmerchantability.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€also€held€that€anyÏclaim€by€the€plaintiff€against€Vitro€or€Michael€was€barred€byÏthe€statute€of€limitations€and€reversed€the€order€making€themÏdefendants€pursuant€to€Section€20„1„119.ÌÌà@ àòòò òStandard€of€Reviewóóó óÌÌà àThe€issues€presented€are€questions€of€law€raised€byÏthe€motions€to€dismiss€based€on€the€failure€to€state€a€claimÏand€statutes€of€limitations.€€Consequently,€the€scope€ofÏreview€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonóó,€854ÏS.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà@ àò òòòIssuesóóó óÌÌà àThis€suit€had€been€pending€for€more€than€three€andÏone„half€years€when€the€decision€in€òòMcIntyreóó€was€released.€ÏPrior€to€the€release€of€òòMcIntyreóó€on€May4,€1992,€the€essentialÏissues€raised€by€the€pleadings€were€whether€Truckstops€wasÏguilty€of€negligence€which€proximately€caused€or€contributedÏto€the€plaintiff's€injuries,€and€whether,€in€the€eventÏTruckstops€was€found€liable€to€the€plaintiff,€Truckstops€wasÏentitled€to€indemnity€or€òòproóó€òòrataóó€contribution€from€Vitro€andÏMichael.ÌÌà àThe€holding€in€òòMcIntyreóó,€that€the€principles€ofÏcomparative€fault€would€apply€to€all€cases€tried€after€theÏdecision€in€òòMcIntyreóó€was€released,€òòMcIntyreóó,Ô€/Ô€Ô€=Ô833€S.W.2d€at€€58,Ïrequires€that€the€case€before€the€Court€be€decided€under€aÏcomparative€fault€analysis€to€the€extent€that€the€principlesÏapproved€in€òòMcIntyreóó€and€subsequent€decisions€can€be€appliedÏin€this€case€without€imposing€substantial€injustice€on€anyÏparty.€€Concepts€of€fairness€and€efficiency€are€the€basis€ofÏcomparative€fault.€€òòSeeóó€W.€Page€Keeton€et€al.,€òòProsser€andÏKeeton€on€the€Law€of€Tortsóó€ðð€67,€at€468„470€(5th€ed.€1984);ÏòòMcIntyreóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€56,€58.€€Consequently,€fairness€andÍefficiency€must€be€the€controlling€principles€in€adjudicatingÏthose€cases€commenced€prior€to€the€decision€in€òòMcIntyreóó€whichÏcannot€be€conformed€to€all€of€the€procedures€contemplated€byÏthe€doctrine€of€comparative€fault.€€However,€except€whereÏnoted€as€a€transitional€procedure,€the€rules€applied€here€willÏconstitute€precedents€for€subsequent€cases.ÌÌà àWhen€the€alleged€cause€of€action€arose,€theÏplaintiff€had€the€right€to€assert€a€claim€for€damages€againstÏTruckstops,€Vitro,€and€Michael,€or€any€of€them,€and€recoverÏ100€percent€of€his€damages€from€any€of€the€parties€found,€uponÏany€applicable€legal€basis,€to€have€caused€or€contributed€toÏhis€injuries,€provided€his€claim€was€not€barred€by€his€ownÏconduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòVelsicol€Chemical€Corp.€v.€Roweóó,€543ÏS.W.2d€337,€342„43€(Tenn.€l976);€òòJohnson€v.€Kingóó,€221€Tenn.Ï292,€426€S.W.2d€196,€198€(l968).€€Notwithstanding€theseÏoptions€as€to€parties€and€causes€of€action,€Truckstops€was€theÏonly€party€sued,€and€negligence€was€the€only€cause€of€actionÏalleged€in€the€original€complaint,€filed€the€last€day€allowedÏby€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€plaintiff€obviouslyÏexpected€no€recovery€against€any€party€other€than€TruckstopsÍand€on€no€theory€of€liability€other€than€negligence.€ÏNevertheless,€the€law€in€effect€when€the€plaintiff€filed€suitÏagainst€Truckstops€would€have€allowed€him€to€obtain€fromÏTruckstops€full€recovery€for€his€damages€upon€proof€thatÏTruckstops'€negligence€proximately€caused€or€contributed€toÏhis€injuries,€in€the€absence€of€a€defense€based€on€his€ownÏconduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€ÌÌà àEven€though,€according€to€the€law€then€applicable,Ïany€claim€that€the€plaintiff€had€against€Vitro€and€Michael€hadÏbeen€lost€by€his€failure€to€sue€them€prior€to€the€expirationÏof€the€statute€of€limitations,€Truckstops€still€€had€theÏright,€pursuant€to€the€Uniform€Contribution€Among€Tort„FeasorsÏAct,€which€right€it€exercised,€to€assert€claims€against€VitroÏand€Michael€for€contribution€and€indemnity.€€ÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„11„104€(1980).ÌÌà àIf€the€plaintiff's€cause€of€action€had€accrued€afterÏthe€decision€in€òòMcIntyreóó€and€after€the€effective€date€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119,€the€rights€and€liabilities€of€theÏparties€would€be€significantly€different.€€The€plaintiff€wouldÍhave€a€cause€of€action€which€would€not€be€barred€by€hisÏnegligence€unless€his€negligence€was€not€less€than€the€Ïnegligence€of€those€responsible€for€his€injuries,€but€hisÏrecovery€would€be€reduced€in€direct€proportion€to€the€extentÏhis€negligence€contributed€to€the€injuries€sustained.€€òòSeeóóÏòòMcIntyreóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€57.€€Also,€except€as€discussedÌsubsequently,× ƒI ××  ×€the€defendants€would€not€be€jointly€liable,€butÏeach€defendant's€liability€would€be€in€proportion€to€thatÏparty's€fault.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€58.€€Truckstops€still€would€haveÏthe€right€to€assert€that€Vitro€and€Michael€caused€orÏcontributed€to€the€plaintiff's€injury,€and€the€plaintiff€wouldÏhave€the€right,€for€90€days€under€Section€20„1„119,€to€assertÏa€claim€against€such€person€or€persons,€by€amendment€to€theÏcomplaint€or€by€a€separate€action,€even€if€the€applicableÏstatute€of€limitations€had€run.€€See€Rule€8.03€and€Rule€l4.0l,ÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.ÌÌà àDisposition€of€the€motions€presented€on€this€appealÏrequires€the€resolution€of€issues€relating€to€comparativeÍnegligence,€statutes€of€limitations,€third„party€practice,Ïjoint€tortfeasors,€strict€liability€in€tort,€contribution,Ïindemnity,€and€breach€of€implied€warranty€of€merchantability.òòÌÌà@ àò òComparative€Negligenceó óÌÌà àMcIntyreóó€was€a€suit€for€damages€for€personalÏinjuries€sustained€by€the€plaintiff€in€a€collision€between€twoÏmotor€vehicles.€€It€was€essentially€a€two„party€suit,€in€whichÏthe€injured€driver€of€one€vehicle€sued€the€owner,€operator€ofÏthe€other€vehicle.€€The€defense€was€contributory€negligenceÏand€the€determinative€issue€on€appeal€was€the€trial€court'sÏrefusal€to€charge€the€doctrine€of€comparative€negligence.€€TheÏCourt€adopted€a€modified€form€of€comparative€negligence:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[S]o€long€as€a€plaintiff's€negligenceÏremains€less€than€the€defendant'sÏnegligence€the€plaintiff€may€recover;€inÏsuch€a€case,€the€plaintiff's€damages€areÏto€be€reduced€in€proportion€to€theÏpercentage€of€the€total€negligenceÏattributable€to€the€plaintiff.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòMcIntyreóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€57.× ƒJ ××  ×€€ÌÌà àIn€no€case€involving€principles€of€comparative€faultÏdecided€by€the€Court€since€òòMcIntyreóó,€even€though€they€all€haveÏbeen€transitional€cases,€has€the€Court€found€that€substitutingÏcomparative€negligence€for€the€traditional€doctrine€ofÏcontributory€negligence€worked€an€unfairness€upon€any€party.× ƒK ××  ×€ÏLikewise,€application€of€comparative€negligence€in€this€caseÏwould€not€defeat€the€right€alleged,€the€right€to€recoverÏdamages€from€Truckstops€upon€proof€that€Truckstops€wasÏnegligent€and€its€negligence€proximately€caused€or€contributedÏto€the€plaintiff's€injuries€and€damages.× ƒL ××  ×€€ÌÌà àHowever,€application€of€comparative€fault€principlesÍin€this€case€would€limit€the€plaintiff's€recovery€to€thatÏportion€of€the€damages€corresponding€to€the€fault€attributableÏto€Truckstops€without€granting€to€the€plaintiff€the€benefit€ofÏother€rights€recognized€in€òòMcIntyreóó,€and,€therefore,€couldÏimpose€upon€him€a€significant€unfairness.€€The€application€ofÏòòMcIntyreóó,€which€allows€the€defendant€to€show€"that€a€non„partyÏcaused€or€contributed€to€the€injury€or€damage€from€whichÏrecovery€is€sought,"€òòid.óó€at€58,€would€allow€Truckstops€to€showÏthat€Vitro€and€Michael€were€responsible€for€some€of€theÏplaintiff's€damages€thereby€reducing€the€extent€of€itsÏliability€and€thus€preventing€the€plaintiff€from€obtaining€aÏfull€recovery,€unless€the€plaintiff€has€the€right,€pursuant€toÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119€or€otherwise,€to€assert€claimsÏagainst€Vitro€and€Michael.Ì€€Ìà àConsequently,€before€deciding€Truckstops'€liabilityÏto€the€plaintiff€and€Truckstops'€claims€under€its€third„partyÏaction€against€Vitro€and€Michael,€the€plaintiff's€rightsÏagainst€those€third„party€defendants€must€be€determined.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òStatutes€of€Limitationsóóó óÌÌà àVitro€and€Michael€claim€that€the€plaintiff€is€barredÏby€the€statutes€of€limitations€from€recovering€from€them.€€TheÏplaintiff's€causes€of€action€for€strict€liability€andÏnegligence€accrued€when€he€was€injured€on€Septemberl4,€l987.€ÏThe€record€does€not€show€clearly€when€his€alleged€warrantyÏclaim€accrued,€it€certainly€accrued€no€later€than€the€date€ofÏthe€injury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„2„725(2)€(1992).€€UnderÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„104€(Supp.€1993),€actions€for€personalÏinjury,€including€products€liability€cases,€must€be€commencedÏwithin€one€year€from€the€date€on€which€the€cause€of€actionÏaccrued.€€Actions€for€breach€of€the€implied€warranty€ofÏmerchantability€must€be€commenced€within€four€years€underÏSection€47„2„725.€€The€plaintiff€did€not€seek€to€assert€anyÏclaim€against€Vitro€or€Michael€until€June4,€1993,€almost€sixÏyears€after€the€date€of€his€injury.€€Consequently,€any€claimsÏthe€plaintiff€may€have€had€against€Vitro€or€Michael€wereÏbarred€when€he€moved€the€Court€to€amend€his€complaint€to€makeÏthem€defendants.€€ÌÌà àThe€enactment€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„1„119€does€notÍrevive€the€plaintiff's€right€to€assert€claims€against€VitroÏand€Michael.€€Section€20„1„119€now€allows€a€plaintiff€aÏlimited€time€within€which€to€amend€a€complaint€to€add€as€aÏdefendant€any€person€alleged€by€another€defendant€to€haveÏcaused€or€contributed€to€the€injury,€even€if€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€applicable€to€a€plaintiff's€cause€of€actionÏagainst€the€added€defendant€has€expired.€€However,€thisÏstatute€was€not€enacted€until€1993,€after€the€plaintiff'sÏclaims€had€become€barred.€€The€state€constitution€prohibitsÏthe€revival€of€these€causes€of€action€outside€of€theÏlimitation€periods.€€The€Constitution€of€Tennessee,€Article€I,ÏSection€20,€provides€"[t]hat€no€retrospective€law,€or€lawÏimpairing€the€obligations€of€contracts,€shall€be€made."€ÏRetrospective€laws€are€laws€that€"take€away€or€impair€vestedÏrights€acquired€under€existing€laws€or€create€a€newÏobligation,€impose€a€new€duty,€or€attach€a€new€disability€inÏrespect€of€transactions€or€considerations€already€passed."€ÏòòMorris€v.€Grossóó,€572€S.W.2d€902,€907€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€CourtÏhas€determined€that€a€potential€defendant€acquires€a€vestedÏright€not€to€be€sued€once€a€cause€of€action€has€accrued€andÏthe€applicable€statute€of€limitations€has€expired.€€òòWatts€v.ÍPutnam€Countyóó,€525€S.W.2d€488,€492€(Tenn.€1975).€€Accordingly,Ïthe€plaintiff€is€barred€from€asserting€any€claim€for€personalÏinjury€or€breach€of€implied€warranty€of€merchantabilityÏagainst€Vitro€or€Michael.ÌÌà àSince€the€plaintiff€cannot€recover€from€Vitro€orÏMichael€damages€which€may€be€attributable€to€them,€he€may€beÏdenied€a€full€recovery€unless€he€is€allowed€to€recover€all€ofÏhis€damages€from€Truckstops.€€However,€this€could€constituteÏan€injustice€to€Truckstops,€unless€Truckstops€can€assertÏthird„party€claims€against€Vitro€and€Michael.€€The€issue€thenÏis€the€effect€of€òòMcIntyreóó€and€subsequent€decisions€onÏTruckstops'€right€to€pursue€third„party€actions€against€VitroÏand€Michael€for€indemnity€and€contribution.ÌÌà@ àòòò òThird„Party€Practiceóóó óÌÌà àThe€only€cause€of€action€asserted€by€the€plaintiffÏagainst€Truckstops€was€based€on€negligence,€while€TruckstopsÏhas€asserted€third„party€claims€based€on€negligence,€strictÏliability€in€tort,€and€breach€of€implied€warranty€ofÍmerchantability.€€The€basis€on€which€Truckstops€can€assertÏthird„party€claims€against€Vitro€and€Michael€is€not€limited€toÏthe€cause€of€action€asserted€by€the€plaintiff€againstÏTruckstops.€€In€òòTurner€v.€Aldor€Co.€of€Nashville,€Inc.óó,€827ÏS.W.2d€318€(Tenn.€App.€1991),€decided€before€òòMcIntyreóó,€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€examined€third„party€practice€in€TennesseeÏunder€Rule14€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,× ƒM ××  ×€andÏfound€that€its€purpose€"is€to€enable€the€defendant€to€impleadÏanother€person€'who€is€or€may€be€liable€to€him€for€all€or€partÏof€the€plaintiff's€claim€against€him.'"€€òòId.óó€at€320€(quotingÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€l4.0l).€€The€court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€third„party€defendant's€liability€toÏthe€defendant€may€be€based€on€an€entirelyÏdifferent€theory€than€the€defendant'sÏliability€to€the€plaintiff.€€Since€aÏplaintiff€may€choose€to€sue€one€or€moreÏdefendants€without€joining€others,€it€isÏirrelevant€that€the€plaintiff€has€noÍclaim€against€the€third„party€defendantÏor€has€chosen€not€to€assert€one.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€4€òòAmerican€Law€of€ProductsÏLiability€3dóó,€ðð€52:17€(Timothy€E.€Travers€et€al.€eds.,€3d€ed.Ï1987).€€Notwithstanding€the€above„stated€rule€applicable€toÏthird€party€practice€generally,€the€doctrine€of€comparativeÏfault€contemplates€that€the€apportionment€of€fault€is€limitedÏto€those€against€which€the€plaintiff€has€a€cause€of€action.€ÏSince€the€claims€that€Truckstops,€in€the€posture€of€a€third„party€plaintiff,€has€against€Vitro€and€Michael,€in€the€postureÏof€third„party€defendants,€are€claims€which€the€plaintiffÏOwens€could€have€asserted€against€Vitro€and€Michael,€anÏapportionment€of€liability€among€the€first„party€defendant€andÏthe€third„party€defendants€that€is€consistent€with€principlesÏof€comparative€fault€can€be€accomplished€according€to€third„party€proceedings€in€this€case.€€Ìà@ àÌà@ àòòò òLiability€Between€Joint€Tortfeasorsóóó óÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Negligenceó óÌÌà àTruckstops€insists€that€òòMcIntyreóó€"abolished"€jointÏand€several€liability€in€all€cases€"tried€or€retried,€afterÏthe€òòMcIntyreóó€decision,"€and€that,€consequently,€its€liabilityÏis€limited€to€that€portion€of€the€fault€attributable€to€it.€ÏTruckstops€also€claims€that€it€has€the€right,€under€òòMcIntyreóó,Ïto€show,€pursuant€to€its€amended€answer,€that€Vitro€andÏMichael€caused€or€contributed€to€the€plaintiff's€injuries€andÏresulting€damages,€thereby€reducing€or€eliminating€liabilityÏon€its€part.€€Vitro€and€Michael€also€contend€that€òòMcIntyreóóÏabolished€joint€and€several€liability€and€the€incidentalÏrights€of€contribution€and€indemnity.€€ÌÌà àòòMcIntyreóó€was€an€action€in€negligence€against€a€soleÏdefendant;€consequently,€the€only€allocation€of€fault€in€thatÏcase€was€between€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendant.€€AfterÏremanding€the€case€for€a€new€trial,€the€Court€in€òòMcIntyreóóÏstated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€We€recognize€that€today's€decisionÏaffects€numerous€legal€principlesÏsurrounding€tort€litigation.€€For€theÏmost€part,€harmonizing€these€principlesÏwith€comparative€fault€must€await€anotherÏday.€€However,€we€feel€compelled€toÍprovide€some€guidance€to€the€trial€courtsÏcharged€with€implementing€this€newÏsystem.ÌÌÌÌòòMcIntyreóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€57.ÓÓ€€As€part€of€its€guidance€for€theÏbench€and€bar,€the€Court€described€that€decision's€effect€asÏrendering€the€doctrine€of€joint€and€several€liabilityÏ"obsolete,"× ƒN ××  ×€stating,€ÌÌÓÓà8 à[h]aving€thus€adopted€a€rule€more€closelyÏlinking€liability€and€fault,€it€would€beÏinconsistent€to€simultaneously€retain€aÏrule,€joint€and€several€liability,€whichÏmay€fortuitously€impose€a€degree€ofÏliability€that€is€out€of€all€proportionÏto€fault.ÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€58.€€ÓÓThe€Court€further€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€Uniform€Contribution€Among€Tort„Feasors€Act,€T.C.A.€ðððð€29„11„101€to€106Ï(1980)),€will€no€longer€determine€theÏapportionment€of€liability€betweenÏcodefendants.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€€However,€in€response€to€a€petition€for€a€rehearing,€theÏCourt€stated€that€further€guidance€regarding€"the€advisabilityÏof€retaining€joint€and€several€liability€in€certain€limitedÏcircumstances€.€.€.€should€await€an€appropriate€controversy."€ÏòòId.óó€at€60.€€That€issue€is€presented€in€the€case€before€theÏCourt.ÌÌà àThe€comparative€fault€decisions€rendered€to€date€byÏthis€Court€have€dealt€primarily€with€the€allocation€of€faultÏbetween€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendant€or€defendants.€€InÏòòPerez€v.€McConkeyóó,€872€S.W.2d€897€(Tenn.€1994),€there€was€onlyÏone€defendant.€€The€cause€of€action€was€common€law€negligence.€ÏThe€issue€was€whether€assumption€of€risk€was€an€absolute€barÏto€the€plaintiff's€charge€of€negligence.€€The€defendants€inÏòòEaton€v.€McLainóó,€891€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€1994),€were€husband€andÏwife.€€The€complaint€charged€common€law€negligence,€the€issueÏwas€the€factors€to€be€considered€in€assigning€fault€to€theÏplaintiff€and€the€defendants.€€There€was€no€determination€ofÏcompeting€rights€and€liabilities€between€the€defendants.€€ÌÌà àThe€first€opportunity€to€consider€the€competingÏinterests€between€tortfeasors€was€presented€in€òòBervoets€v.ÏHarde€Rolls€Pontiac„Olds,€Inc.óó,€891€S.W.2d€905€(Tenn.€1994).ÏIn€that€case€the€tortfeasors€were€charged€with€separate,Ïindependent€acts€of€negligence.€€Like€the€case€before€theÏCourt,€that€case€was€pending€when€the€decision€in€òòMcIntyreóó€wasÏrendered.€€Bervoets,€who€was€a€passenger€in€an€automobileÏoperated€by€Jackson,€was€injured€when€the€vehicle€was€wrecked.€ÏBervoets€sued€Jackson€and€the€owners€of€the€vehicle,€who,€inÏturn,€filed€a€third„party€claim€for€contribution€againstÏAdanac,€Inc.,€alleging€that€the€third„party€defendant€causedÏthe€accident€by€unlawfully€serving€alcoholic€drinks€toÏJackson,€who€was€a€minor.€€Jackson€and€his€liability€insuranceÏcarrier€entered€into€a€settlement€agreement€with€Bervoets,€inÏwhich€Bervoets€released€his€claims€against€all€parties.€ÏJackson's€insurer€then€pursued€a€claim€against€Adanac€forÏcontribution.€€ÌÌà àFollowing€the€release€of€the€decision€in€òòMcIntyreóó,ÏAdanac€moved€to€dismiss€Jackson's€claim€for€contribution€onÏthe€ground€that€òòMcIntyreóó€abolished€joint€and€several€liabilityÍand€the€incidental€right€to€contribution.€€The€Court€rejectedÏAdanac's€interpretation€of€the€opinion€in€òòMcIntyreóó,€stating:€ÌÌÓÓà8 à[O]ur€statements€in€òòMcIntyreóó€with€regardÏto€the€effect€of€our€adoption€of€a€schemeÏof€comparative€fault€on€the€remedy€ofÏcontribution€make€it€clear€that€we€didÏnot€intend€to€deprive€litigants€of€theÏright€to€pursue€a€claim€for€contributionÏin€an€appropriate€case:ÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€907.€€ÓÓSince€there€is€no€right€of€contribution€amongÏtortfeasors€who€are€not€jointly€liable,€the€Court€recognizedÏthat€the€right€to€contribution€would€be€utilized€in€someÏsituations€to€resolve€the€rights€and€liabilities€ofÏtortfeasors€jointly€and€severally€liable€to€others.€€InÏexplanation€of€why€there€was€no€right€to€contribution€inÏòòBervoetsóó,€the€Court€quoted€from€òòMcIntyreóó:ÌÌÒ Ô ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[B]ecause€a€particular€defendant€willÏhenceforth€be€liable€only€for€theÏpercentage€of€a€plaintiff's€damagesÏoccasioned€by€that€defendant's€negligence,Ïsituations€where€a€defendant€has€paid€moreÏthan€his€"share"€of€a€judgment€will€noÏlonger€arise,€and€therefore€the€UniformÏContribution€Among€Tortfeasors€Act,€T.C.A.Ïðððð€29„11„101„„106€(1980)€òòwill€no€longerÏdetermine€the€apportionment€of€liabilityÍbetween€codefendantsóó.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓÓòòId.óó€(emphasis€in€original)€(quoting€òòMcIntyreóó,€833€S.W.2d€atÏ58).€€The€Court€in€òòBervoetsóó€made€clear€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ29„11„103(1),€which€provides€that€tortfeasors'€"relativeÏdegrees€of€fault€shall€not€be€considered"€in€determining€theÏòòproóó€òòrataóó€shares€of€liability,€is€not€consistent€with€theÏdoctrine€of€comparative€fault,€which€imposes€liability€inÏdirect€relation€to€fault.€€The€holding€in€òòBervoetsóó€was€thatÏunder€comparative€fault,€Jackson€and€Adanac,€Inc.€were€notÏjointly€and€severally€liable€to€the€plaintiff,€but,€Jackson,Ïwho€had€paid€the€plaintiffs'€damages€in€full,€would€beÏallowed,€in€that€transitional€case,€to€assert€a€claim€forÏcontribution€against€Adanac,€Inc.€so€that€liability€would€beÏassessed,€as€explained€on€petition€to€rehear,€according€toÏ"the€percentage€of€fault€attributable€to€each€of€theÏdefendants."€€ÌÌà àHad€the€plaintiff's€cause€of€action€in€òòBervoetsóóÏarisen€subsequent€to€the€adoption€of€comparative€fault,ÏJackson,€in€an€effort€to€reduce€the€extent€of€his€liability,Íwould€have€alleged€in€his€answer€that€Adanac,€Inc.€caused€orÏcontributed€to€the€damages,€and€the€plaintiff,€on€pain€ofÏrecovering€less€than€full€damages,€would€have€amended€hisÏcomplaint€pursuant€to€Section€20„1„119€to€assert€a€claimÏagainst€Adanac,€Inc.€€Thus,€the€purpose€of€comparative€fault,Ïthe€assessment€of€liability€in€proportion€to€fault,€would€haveÏbeen€accomplished€without€the€proceeding€to€enforceÏcontribution,€which€was€made€necessary€in€òòBervoetsóó€because€theÏtime€within€which€the€plaintiff€could€assert€a€claim€againstÏAdanac,€Inc.€directly€had€expired€when€òòMcIntyreóó€was€decided.€€ÌÌà àProcedurally,€òòBervoetsóó€and€the€case€before€the€CourtÏare€similar.€€In€both€cases,€the€plaintiff€sued€a€defendant€onÏa€charge€of€negligence,€and€the€defendant€filed€a€third„partyÏaction€against€others€asserting€a€separate,€independent€act€ofÏnegligence.€€In€neither€case€had€the€plaintiff€asserted€aÏclaim€directly€against€the€third„party€defendant.€€The€mainÏdifference€in€the€two€cases€is€that€in€òòBervoetsóó,€the€plaintiffÏhad,€by€settlement€with€the€defendants,€recovered€his€damagesÏin€full,€while,€in€the€present€case,€the€issue€of€theÏdefendant's€liability€to€the€plaintiff€had€not€been€resolvedÍwhen€òòMcIntyreóó€was€decided.€€The€defendants€in€òòBervoetsóó€wereÏcharged€with€separate,€independent€acts€of€negligence,€andÏunder€comparative€fault€would€not€be€jointly€liable.€ÏContribution€was€utilized€so€that€liability€for€damagesò ò€ó ócouldÏbe€apportioned€between€the€defendants€on€the€basis€of€theirÏrelative€fault.€€ÌÌà àòòVolz€v.€Ledesóó,€895€S.W.2d€677€(Tenn.€1995),€was€aÏmedical€malpractice€case€in€which€the€jury€attributed€10Ïpercent€of€the€fault€to€the€plaintiff,€45€percent€to€theÏphysician„defendant,€and€45€percent€to€a€non„party€physician.€ÏAs€in€òòBervoetsóó,€each€tortfeasor€was€charged€with€separate,Ïindependent€acts€of€negligence.€€The€decision€was€that€faultÏbe€attributed€against€each€tortfeasor€separately,€even€thoughÏone€tortfeasor€was€not€a€party€to€the€suit.ÌÌà àThese€comparative€fault€cases€decided€by€the€CourtÏestablish€that,€in€all€cases€of€negligence€in€which€theÏplaintiff€is€entitled€to€recover€damages,€liability€forÏdamages€will€be€reduced€in€proportion€to€the€damagesÏattributable€to€the€plaintiff's€fault.€€The€decisions€alsoÍestablish€that€where€the€separate,€independent€negligent€actsÏof€more€than€one€tortfeasor€combine€to€cause€a€single,Ïindivisible€injury,€each€tortfeasor€will€be€liable€only€forÏthat€proportion€of€the€damages€attributable€to€its€fault.€€AsÏto€those€tortfeasors,€liability€is€not€joint€and€several€butÏseveral€only,€even€though€two€or€more€tortfeasors€are€joinedÏin€the€same€action.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€as€in€òòBervoetsóó,€fairness€demands€thatÏcontribution€be€allowed€in€this€case.€€Truckstops'€third„partyÏclaim€against€Vitro€and€Michael€for€contribution€based€onÏallegations€of€negligence€will€be€apportioned€according€to€theÏpercentage€of€fault€attributable€to€each€of€the€tortfeasors.€ÏThe€policy€consideration€that€Tennessee€not€"abandon€totallyÏour€fault„based€tort€system"€which€was€the€basis€for€rejectingÏpure€comparative€fault€in€favor€of€the€"49€percent"€rule,ÏòòMcIntyreóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€57Ô€/Ô,Ô€=Ô€is€not€applicable€to€theÏapportionment€of€liability€among€tortfeasors.× ƒO ××  ×€€This€isÍconsistent€with€the€decision€in€òòBervoetsóó€that€"[the€jury]Ïshall€proceed€to€determine€the€percentage€of€faultÏattributable€to€each€of€the€defendants,€and€contribution€willÏbe€ordered€accordingly."€€òòBervoetsóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€908.€ÏAllowing€the€claim€for€contribution€will€accomplish€the€sameÏequitable€results€in€this€case€that€would€be€accomplished€ifÏthe€rights€and€liabilities€of€all€of€the€parties€could€beÏdetermined€according€to€the€principles€announced€in€òòMcIntyreóóÏand€provided€in€Section€20„1„119.€€ÌÌà@ àII.€€òòò òStrict€Liability€in€Tortóóó óÌÌà àòòWhitehead€v.€Toyota€Motor€Corp.óó,€897€S.W.2d€684Ï(Tenn.€1995),€was€the€Court's€first€comparative€fault€caseÏinvolving€a€products€liability€action€based€on€strictÏliability€in€tort.€€The€Court€held€that€in€Tennessee,€as€inÏthe€majority€of€other€jurisdictions,€comparative€negligenceÏapplies€to€products€liability€actions€based€on€strictÏliability€in€tort.€€òòId.óó€at€691.€€òòWhiteheadóó€was€a€federal€caseÍin€which€the€United€States€District€Court,€pursuant€to€RuleÏ23,€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court,€certified€to€this€Court€theÏquestion€of€whether€the€affirmative€defense€of€comparativeÏnegligence€can€be€raised€in€a€products€liability€action€basedÏon€strict€liability€in€tort.€€The€Court€recognized€that€priorÏto€the€adoption€of€comparative€fault€in€Tennessee€contributoryÏnegligence€was€not€a€defense€to€an€action€based€Ìon€strict€liability€in€tort,€òòWhitehead€v.€Toyota€Motor€Corp.óó,Ï897€S.W.2d€at€688,€òòseeóó€òòEllithorpe€v.€Ford€Motor€Co.óó,€503ÏS.W.2d€516€(Tenn.€1973).€€However,€answering€the€certifiedÏquestion€in€the€affirmative,€the€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€The€conduct€that€leads€to€strictÏproducts€liability€involves€fault,€as€theÏword€"fault"€is€commonly€understood.€€òòSeeóóÏòògenerallyóó€William€C.€Powers,€òòTheÏPersistence€of€Fault€in€ProductsÏLiabilityóó,€6l€Tex.€L.€Rev.€777€(1983).€ÏIn€keeping€with€the€principle€of€linkingÏliability€with€fault,€a€plaintiff'sÏability€to€recover€in€a€strict€productsÏliability€case€should€not€be€unaffectedÏby€the€extent€to€which€his€injuriesÏresult€from€his€own€fault.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòWhitehead€v.€Toyota€Motor€Corp.óó,€897€S.W.2d€at€693.€€ÌAfter€reviewing€the€history€of€strict€liability€in€Tennessee,Íthe€Court€found€that€reducing€the€plaintiff's€recovery€by€theÏproportion€of€damages€attributable€to€the€plaintiff's€faultÏwould€not€defeat€the€principal€reasons€for€the€adoption€ofÏstrict€liability:€€€ÌÌÓÓà8 à(1)€to€encourage€greater€care€in€theÏmanufacture€of€products€that€areÏdistributed€to€the€public,€and€(2)€toÏrelieve€injured€consumers€from€the€burdenÏof€proving€negligence€on€a€manufacturer'sÏpart.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€693.€€à àÌÌà àAlthough€there€were€two€defendants€in€òòWhiteheadóó,€theÏmanufacturer€and€the€seller€of€the€product€alleged€to€beÏdefective€and€unreasonably€dangerous,€the€issue€presented€toÏthe€Court€related€only€to€the€apportionment€of€damages€betweenÏthe€plaintiff€and€the€defendants.€€òòWhiteheadóó€did€not€addressÏthe€issue€presently€before€the€Court,€the€rights€andÏliabilities€between€multiple€defendants€in€a€strict€liabilityÏaction.€€This€case€is€the€"appropriate€controversy,"€òòMcIntyreóó,Ï833€S.W.2d€at€60,€for€the€Court€to€address€"the€advisabilityÏof€retaining€joint€and€several€liability,"€òòidóó.,€for€defendantsÍin€the€chain€of€distribution€of€a€product€who€are€liable€uponÏa€theory€of€strict€liability€in€tort.× ƒP ××  ×€€ÌÌà àStrict€liability€in€tort€is€recognized€as€a€cause€ofÏaction€in€the€Tennessee€Products€Liability€Act€of€1978.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðððð€29„28„10l€to€29„29„108€(1980€and€Supp.€1994).€ÏUnder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„105(a)€(1980),€a€manufacturer€orÏseller€of€a€product€may€be€liable€for€"injury€to€person€orÏproperty€caused€by€the€product€[if]€the€product€is€determinedÏto€be€in€a€defective€condition€or€unreasonably€dangerous€atÏthe€time€it€left€the€control€of€the€manufacturer€or€seller."€ÏProof€of€negligence€on€the€part€of€the€manufacturer€or€sellerÏis€not€required.€òòFord€Motor€Co.€v.€Eadsóó,€224€Tenn.€473,€457ÍS.W.2d€28,€30€(1970);€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts,€ðð€402A,Ïcmt.€m€(1965).€€The€policy€reasons€for€imposing€strictÏliability€were€reviewed€by€the€Court€in€òòWhiteheadóó:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 à"We€imposed€strict€liability€against€theÏmanufacturer€and€in€favor€of€the€user€orÏconsumer€in€order€to€relieve€injuredÏconsumers€'from€òòproblems€of€proofóóÏinherent€in€pursuing€negligence€.€.€.€andÏwarranty€.€.€.€remedies€.€.€.'€€As€weÏhave€noted,€we€sought€to€place€the€burdenÏof€loss€on€manufacturers€rather€thanÏ'injured€personsòò€who€are€powerless€toÏprotect€themselves.'"óóÌÌÌÌÓÓòòWhitehead€v.€Toyota€Motor€Corp.óó,€897€S.W.2d€at€691€(quotingÏfrom€òòDaly€v.€General€Motors€Corp.óó,€575€P.2d€1162,€1167„69Ï(1978))€(emphasis€in€original).€€The€Court€recognized€that€inÏapplying€comparative€negligence€principles€to€actions€based€onÏstrict€liability,ÌÌÓÓà8 à[t]here€is€still€no€requirement€thatÏnegligence€on€the€part€of€a€manufacturerÏbe€proved,€only€that€the€manufacturerÏdistributed€a€defective€or€unreasonablyÏdangerous€product.ÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€693.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà à€Procedurally,€a€plaintiff€in€a€strict€liabilityÏaction€must€satisfy€one€of€the€conditions€set€forth€in€ðð€29„28„106(b)€(Supp.€1994),€which€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àNo€product€liability€action€as€defined€inÏðð€29„28„102(6),€when€based€on€theÏdoctrine€of€strict€liability€in€tortÏshall€be€commenced€or€maintained€againstÏany€seller€of€a€product€which€is€allegedÏto€contain€or€possess€a€defectiveÏcondition€unreasonably€dangerous€to€theÏbuyer,€user€or€consumer€unless€the€sellerÏis€also€the€manufacturer€of€the€productÏor€the€manufacturer€of€the€part€thereofÏclaimed€to€be€defective,€or€unless€theÏmanufacturer€of€the€product€or€part€inÏquestion€shall€not€be€subject€to€serviceÏof€process€in€the€state€of€Tennessee€orÏservice€cannot€be€secured€by€the€long„armÏstatutes€of€Tennessee€or€unless€suchÏmanufacturer€has€been€judicially€declaredÏinsolvent.ÌÌÌÌÓÓA€primary€purpose€of€this€section€is€"to€ensure€that€anÏinjured€consumer€may€maintain€a€strict€liability€actionÏagainst€whomever€is€most€likely€to€compensate€him€for€hisÏinjuries."€€òòSeal€v.€Sears,€Roebuck€and€Co.,€Inc.óó,€688€F.€Supp.Ïl252,€l253€(E.D.€Tenn.€l988).€€When€the€manufacturer€is€notÍamenable€to€service€of€process€or€is€insolvent,€an€injuredÏconsumer€can€assert€liability€against€the€"faultless"€seller.€ÏIf,€under€these€circumstances,€the€seller€were€not€held€to€beÏjointly€liable€for€the€plaintiff's€damages,€then,€contrary€toÏthe€products€liability€statute,€the€injured€consumer€would€beÏleft€with€no€remedy.€€When€the€legislature€grants€a€remedy,€itÏcannot€be€abolished€by€judicial€decision.€€òòBervoetsóó,€891ÏS.W.2d€at€907.ÌÌà àConsequently,€joint€and€several€liability€againstÏparties€in€the€chain€of€distribution€of€a€product€is€essentialÏto€the€theory€of€strict€products€liability.€€Since€strictÏliability€does€not€require€proof€of€negligence,€but€only€thatÏthe€product€was€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous,€partiesÏin€the€chain€of€distribution€must€be€treated€as€a€single€unitÏfor€the€purpose€of€determining€and€allocating€fault.× ƒQ ××  ×ÌÌà àThis€conclusion€is€supported€by€portions€of€theÍUniform€Contribution€Among€Tort„Feasors€Act€not€addressed€inÏòòMcIntyreóó,€which€provide,€"[i]f€equity€requires,€the€collectiveÏliability€of€some€as€a€group€shall€constitute€a€single€share"Ïand€"[p]rinciples€of€equity€applicable€to€contributionÏgenerally€shall€apply."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„11„103(2)€andÏ(3).€Consequently,€in€the€case€before€the€Court,€on€the€chargeÏof€strict€liability€in€tort,€the€liability€of€Vitro,€as€theÏmanufacturer,€and€Michael,€as€the€seller× ƒR ××  ×€of€a€product€allegedÏto€be€defective€and€dangerous,€"shall€constitute€a€singleÏshare."€€The€third„party€defendants€will€be€held€jointly€andÏseverally€liable€as€to€the€third„party€plaintiff,€withÏprinciples€of€contribution€and€indemnity€applying€to€determineÏthe€ultimate€division€of€liability€among€the€strictly€liableÏdefendants.ò ò× ƒS ××  ×ó ó€€ÌÌà àThis€holding€is€consistent€with€òòWhiteheadóó.€€In€thatÏcase,€as€in€almost€all€of€the€cases€cited€therein€whereÏcomparative€fault€was€applied€to€strict€products€liabilityÏactions,€òòWhiteheadóó,€897€S.W.2d€at€691„92,€the€allocation€ofÏfault€among€the€defendants€in€the€chain€of€distribution€of€theÏproduct€was€not€an€issue.€€It€was€not€an€issue€because€inÏthose€comparative€fault€jurisdictions,€joint€and€severalÏliability€of€tortfeasors€had€been€retained€after€the€adoptionÏof€comparative€fault€or€the€strict€products€liability€actionÏwas€brought€against€only€one€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòElliot€v.€Sears,ÏRoebuck€and€Co.óó,€642€A.2d€709€(Conn.€1974);€òòWest€v.ÏCaterpillar€Tractor€Co.óó,€336€So.2d€80€(Fla.€l976);€òòKaneko€v.ÏHilo€Coast€Processingóó,€654€P.2d€343€(Haw.€1982);€òòConey€v.ÏJ.L.G.€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€454€N.E.2d€l97€(Ill.€l983);€òòBell€v.€JetÏWheel€Blastóó,€462€So.2d€166€(La.€l985);€òòAustin€v.€Raybestos„Manhattan,€Inc.óó,€471€A.2d€280€(Me.€l984);€òòBrisboy€v.ÏFibreboard€Corp.óó,€4l8€N.W.2d€650€(Mich.€1988);€òòJack€Frost,ÏInc.€v.€Engineered€Bldg.€Components€Co.óó,€304€N.W.2d€346€(Minn.Ïl98l);€òòDay€v.€General€Motors€Corp.óó,€345€N.W.2d€349€(N.D.Ïl984);€òòSandford€v.€Chevrolet€Div.€of€General€Motorsóó,€642€P.2dÏ624€(Or.€l982);€òòFiske€v.€MacGregoróó,€464€A.2d€7l9€(R.I.€l983);ÍòòDuncan€v.€Cessna€Aircraft€Co.óó,€665€S.W.2d€4l4€(Tex.€l984);€ÏòòMulherin€v.€Ingersoll„Rand€Co.óó,€628€P.2d€l30l€(Utah€l98l);ÏòòLundberg€v.€All„Pure€Chemical€Co.óó,€777€P.2d€l5€(Wash.€App.Ï1989);€òòStar€Furniture€Co.€v.€Pulaski€Furniture€Co.óó,€297€S.E.2dÏ854€(W.€Va.€l982);€òòDippel€v.€Scianoóó,€l55€N.W.2d€55€(Wis.Ï1967);€òòKeltner€v.€Ford€Motor€Co.óó,€748€F.2d€l265€(8th€Cir.Ï1984)€(based€on€Arkansas€law);€òòTrust€Corp.€of€Montana€v.€PiperÏAircraft€Corp.óó,€506€F.Supp.€1093€(D.€Mont.€1981)€(based€onÏMontana€law).ÌÌà àWhen€comparative€fault€principles€are€applied€in€aÏstrict€liability€action,€the€plaintiff's€fault€is€comparedÏwith€the€fault€of€the€strictly€liable€defendants€as€a€singleÏunit.€€The€fault€of€these€defendants€is€measured€by€the€injuryÏcaused€by€the€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous€product.€ÏWhen€liability€is€found€on€strict€liability€and€alsoÏnegligence€or€other€theories,€the€trier€of€fact€must€apportionÏthe€fault€for€the€plaintiff's€injuries€or€damages€according€toÏthe€percentage€of€damages€caused€by€the€plaintiff,€that€causedÏby€the€product,€and€that€caused€by€each€tortfeasor€actingÍseparately€and€independently.× ƒT ××  ×€€This€procedure€was€adopted€byÏthe€Court€in€òòWhiteheadóó,€where€the€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€triers€of€fact€will€determine€theÏpercentage€of€a€plaintiff's€damages€thatÏis€attributable€to€the€òòdefective€orÏunreasonably€dangerous€productóó€as€well€asÏthe€percentage€that€is€attributable€toÏthe€plaintiff's€own€fault.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòWhitehead€v.€Toyota€Motor€Corp.óó,€897€S.W.2d€at€693€(emphasisÏadded).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòDuncanóó,€665€S.W.2d€at€427€(Tex.€1984).€€ÌÌà àThus,€the€adoption€of€comparative€fault€did€notÏalter€that€products€liability€law€under€which€the€liability€ofÏdefendants€in€the€chain€of€distribution€of€a€product,€who€areÏliable€under€a€theory€of€strict€liability,€is€joint€andÏseveral.€€Under€comparative€fault€principles,€however,€theseÏdefendants€are€jointly€and€severally€liable€only€for€thatÏpercentage€of€the€plaintiff's€damages€caused€by€the€product.€ÏFor€the€percentage€of€damages€caused€by€the€product,€theÏstrictly€liable€defendants€are€treated€as€a€single€unit€orÏshare.€€On€the€other€hand,€when€liability€is€based€onÏnegligence,€each€of€the€defendants€is€severally€liable€onlyÏfor€the€percentage€of€damages€caused€by€its€negligence.€€IfÏthose€defendants€who€can€be€held€jointly€and€severally€liableÏon€a€claim€of€strict€liability€are€also€charged€withÏnegligence,€as€in€this€case,€their€liability€on€the€negligenceÏcharge€will€be€as€separate,€independent€tortfeasors,€and€theirÏliability€on€the€negligence€charge€will€be€several€only.€ÌÌà àThe€result€of€applying€these€principles€to€this€caseÏis€that€on€the€charge€of€strict€liability€in€tort,€theÍliability€of€Vitro€and€Michael€to€Truckstops€is€joint€andÏseveral,€but€only€to€that€portion€of€the€total€liability€thatÏis€attributable€to€them€as€a€single€unit€or€share,€underÏcomparative€fault€principles.€€On€the€charge€of€negligence,Ïthe€liability€of€each€is€several€and€in€proportion€to€theÏdamage€attributable€to€its€negligence.€€ò òÌÌó óà@ àIII.€òòò òIndemnityóóó óÌÌà àTruckstops€claims€that€it€is€entitled€to€indemnityÏfrom€either€Vitro€or€Michael€because€its€negligence€should€beÏconsidered€passive.€€It€relies€upon€the€rule€in€Tennessee€thatÏone€guilty€of€only€"passive"€negligence€rather€than€"active"Ïnegligence€can€recover€indemnification.€€òòWolff€&€Munier,€Inc.Ïv.€Price„Waterhouseóó,€811€S.W.2d€532,€536€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€ÏWhereas€contribution€shifts€only€part€of€the€loss€from€oneÏparty€to€another,€traditional€implied€indemnity€shifts€theÏentire€loss€from€the€party€found€liable€to€a€party€who€shouldÏbear€the€entire€loss.€€4€òòAmerican€Law€of€Products€Liabilityóó€atÏðð€52.1.€€The€law€of€indemnity€may€be€applied€where€one€partyÏis€held€liable€solely€by€imputation€of€law€because€of€aÍrelation€to€a€wrongdoer.€€W.€Page€Keeton€et€al.,€òòProsser€andÏKeeton€on€the€Law€of€Tortsóó,€ðð€51,€at€341„42€(5th€ed.€1984).€Ï"Contracts€of€indemnification€may€be€expressed,€or€anÏobligation€to€indemnify€may€arise€by€implication€from€theÏrelationship€of€the€parties...."€€òòHouseboating€Corp.€ofÏAm.€v.€Marshallóó,€553€S.W.2d€588,€589€(Tenn.€1977).€€ÌÌà àThe€right€of€indemnity€is€not€impaired€by€theÏUniform€Contribution€Among€Tort„Feasors€Act.€€Section€29„11„102(f)€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€This€chapter€does€not€impair€anyÏright€of€indemnity€under€existing€law.€ÏWhere€one€tort„feasor€is€entitled€toÏindemnity€from€another,€the€right€of€theÏindemnity€obligee€is€for€indemnity€andÏnot€contribution,€and€the€indemnityÏobligor€is€not€entitled€to€contributionÏfrom€the€obligee€for€any€portion€of€hisÏindemnity€obligation.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòContinental€Ins.€Co.€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€488€S.W.2dÏ50,€52€(Tenn.€1972).€€However,€indemnification€which€imposesÏthe€entire€loss€on€one€tortfeasor€based€on€the€impreciseÏdistinction€between€active€and€passive€negligence€isÍinconsistent€with€the€comparative€fault€principles€adopted€inÏòòMcIntyreóó€and€subsequent€decisions.€€Consequently,€there€can€beÏno€claim€for€indemnification€based€on€active„passiveÏnegligence€because€that€distinction€is€subsumed€into€theÏdoctrine€of€comparative€fault.€€While€no€longer€determinativeÏof€the€right€to€seek€indemnity,€the€distinctions€between€theÏactive€and€passive€negligence€may€be€factors€to€be€weighed€byÏthe€jury€in€assessing€the€percentage€of€fault€of€the€parties.€ÏòòSchneider€Nat'l€Inc.€v.€Hollandóó,€843€P.2d€561,€578„79€(Wyo.Ï1992).€€However,€where€implied€indemnity€is€based€on€the€legalÏrelationship€between€the€parties,€the€traditional€principlesÏof€indemnity€continue€to€apply.€€ÌÌà àConsequently,€Truckstops€is€not€entitled€toÏindemnity€on€the€third„party€plaintiff's€charge€of€negligence,Ïand€the€liabilities€of€Truckstops,€Vitro€and€Michael€on€theÏcharge€of€negligence€will€be€based€on€their€respectiveÏpercentages€of€fault.€€Neither€Vitro€nor€Michael€has€raisedÏthe€issue€of€indemnity€on€the€charge€of€strict€liability.€€ÌÌà@ àIV.€òòò òBreach€of€Implied€Warrantyóóó óÌÌà àAs€noted€by€the€Court€of€Appeals,€the€third„partyÏcomplaint€alleges€no€facts€in€support€of€the€charge€of€breachÏof€implied€warranty€of€merchantability.€€Consequently,€theÏdiscussion€of€that€issue€is€limited€to€the€determination€thatÏin€an€action€for€damages€for€personal€injuries€based€on€breachÏof€implied€warranty€of€merchantability€of€a€product,Ïcomparative€negligence€may€be€pled€as€a€defense.€€TheÏrationale€is€the€same€as€that€supporting€comparativeÏnegligence€as€a€defense€in€actions€based€on€negligence€andÏstrict€liability€in€tort.€€The€principle€is€well„stated€by€theÏCourt€in€òòFiske€v.€MacGregor,€Div.€of€Brunswickóó,€464€A.2d€7l9,Ï728€(R.I.€1983):ÌÌÓÓà8 àIf€the€comparative„negligence€statuteÏonly€applied€to€negligence€actions,€aÏdefendant€manufacturer€found€liable€inÏstrict€liability€or€implied€warrantyÏcould€not€have€the€damages€apportionedÏbecause€of€plaintiff's€culpable€conduct.€ÏIronically,€defendant€manufacturers€foundÏliable€in€negligence€would€have€theÏdamages€apportioned,€despite€the€factÏthat€their€conduct€was€clearly€moreÏculpable€than€the€conduct€of€thoseÏdefendants€found€liable€in€strictÏliability€or€implied€warranty.€€WeÏbelieve€that€the€just€outcome€of€a€caseÍshould€not€be€determined€by€adroitÏpleading€or€semantical€distinctions.€€AÏdefendant's€culpability€is€the€basis€forÏan€award€of€damages,€whether€thatÏculpability€is€denominated€negligence,Ïstrict€liability,€or€breach€of€warranty.€ÏSimilarly,€a€plaintiff's€culpable€conductÏis€the€basis€for€an€apportionment€ofÏthose€damages.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€conclusion€is€that,€on€the€charge€of€breach€ofÏimplied€warranty€of€merchantability,€a€plaintiff's€claim€forÏdamages€and€the€apportionment€of€those€damages€amongÏtortfeasors€in€a€comparative€fault€case,€and€among€the€first„party€and€third„party€defendants€in€this€case,€will€beÏdetermined€according€to€the€principles€of€comparative€faultÏhereinabove€discussed.ÌÌà@ àòòò òConclusionóóó óÌÌà àBased€on€these€considerations,€the€equitable€resultsÏcontemplated€by€the€doctrine€of€comparative€fault€can€be€bestÏaccomplished€in€this€case€by€not€relieving€Truckstops€of€theÏjoint€and€several€liability€which€existed€when€the€plaintiff'sÏcause€of€action€against€Truckstops€accrued,€and€by€allowingÍTruckstops€to€pursue€its€third„party€claims€against€Vitro€andÏMichael.€€The€plaintiff€will€have€the€same€expectation€ofÏrecovery€as€when€he€filed€his€action€for€negligence€againstÏTruckstops,€and€Truckstops€will€have€the€same€right€to€pursueÏits€third„party€claims€against€Vitro€and€Michael€as€when€itÏmade€them€third„party€defendants.€€In€the€event€thatÏTruckstops€is€found€to€have€caused€or€contributed€by€itsÏnegligence€to€the€plaintiff's€injuries€and€damages,€theÏplaintiff€shall€be€allowed€to€recover€from€Truckstops€the€fullÏamount€of€his€damages.€€And€Truckstops€shall€be€allowed€toÏpursue€its€third„party€actions€according€to€the€principles€setÏforth€in€this€decision.€€Thus,€liability€for€the€damages€toÏwhich€the€plaintiff€may€be€entitled€will€be€allocated€amongÏall€of€the€defendants€in€a€manner€consistent€with€the€doctrineÏof€comparative€fault.× ƒU ××  ×€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€remanding€theÏcase€to€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€as€modified€by€thisÍdecision.Ì€€ÌÌÌà àCosts€will€be€taxed€against€the€parties€equally.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€Birch,€andÌ€€€€€White,€JJ.ÌÌÌDrowota,€J.€„€Dissenting.