ÿWPC$6 …#†VUNÜ %* 0D0 0`tbÔU>Ü4 . UP= 0 ˆ 0D 0JY 0T£ 0`÷ 0^W 0hµ 0r 0| 0† 0‘ 1u!U ,– B 0dß D3C 0@vU,¶U>âU6 ±VB)DC0 AMsU*Àaê†K{ÑHLr”$N*%dx&´Ü'>)v~Î,vÓL. AO4Æn4 0`45 0D”5 D/Ø5 B6˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ØP 5V¿MÂw zP(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý- ù-<èÀ( 9 &Courier Regular˜€* &Ø'ØaZ3|xl&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(83‚ª$§§Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(Modern dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ% Line 7 d55557Border 1dd€-6Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€8ÔÔ€8ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€8XÔÌÌò òJanuaryÏ29,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€8ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔThe€Workers'€Compensation€Act€allows€indemnity€claimsÏwhen€the€employer€has€expressly€contracted€to€indemnify€theÏthird€party.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„108(b)€(1991).Ì qÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔThe€exclusive€remedy€provision€of€the€Workers'ÏCompensation€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„108(a),€eliminatesÏany€tort€liability€on€the€part€of€the€employer.Ì >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔNonparty€is€not€otherwise€defined€as€a€legal€term.€€òòSeeóóÏòòBlack's€Law€Dictionaryóó€(6th€ed.€l990).Ì hÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€3Ô"[I]t€is€generally€held€that€the€employee€cannot€be€metÏwith€a€defense€that€his€own€employer's€negligence€contributedÏto€the€injury."€€2B€Arthur€Larson,€Workmen's€Compensation€Law€Ïðð€75.22,€at€14„649€(1995);€òòseeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòCarriere€v.€ComincoÏAlaska,€Inc.óó,€823€F.€Supp.€680,€692€(D.€Alaska€1993);€òòDurniakÏv.€August€Winter€and€Sons,€Inc.óó,€610€A.2d€1277,€1280€(Conn.Ï1992);€òòMermigis€v.€Servicemaster€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€437€N.W.2d€242,Ï247€(Iowa€1989);€òòC€&€K€Lord,€Inc.€v.€Carteróó,€536€A.2d€699,€702Ï(Md.€Ct.€App.€1988);€òòVan€Hook€v.€Harris€Corp.óó,€356€N.W.2d€18Ï(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1984);€òòNyquist€v.€Batcheróó,€51€N.W.2d€566,€572„73€(Minn.€1952);€òòCordier€v.€Stetson„Ross,€Inc.óó,€604€P.2d€86,Ï93€(Mont.€1979);€òòBilodeau€v.€Oliver€Stores,€Inc.óó,€352€A.2dÏ741,€745€(N.H.€1976);€òòHeckendorn€v.€Consolidated€Rail€Corp.óó,Ï465€A.2d€609€(Pa.€1983);€òòVarela€v.€American€Petrofina€Co.óó,€658ÏS.W.2d€561€(Tex.€1983);€òòSeattle€First€Nat.€Bank€v.€ShorelineÏConcrete€Co.óó,€588€P.2d€1308,€1316€(Wash.€1978).ÌÌà àWhile€some€states€have€reached€a€different€result,€manyÏof€the€cases€involve€statutes€expressly€providing€for€theÏapportionment€of€nonparty€fault,€including€immune€employers.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòDietz€v.€General€Elec.€Co.óó,€821€P.2d€166,€171Ï(Ariz.€1991);€òòWilliams€v.€White€Mountain€Const.€Co.óó,€749€P.2dÏ423,€429€(Colo.€1988);€òòEspaniola€v.€Cawdrey€Mars€JointÏVentureóó,€707€P.2d€365€(Haw.€1985);€òòPowers€v.€Kansas€Power€&ÏLight€Co.óó,€671€P.2d€491,€498„99€(Kan.€1983);€òòBode€v.€ClarkÏEquip.€Co.óó,€719€P.2d€824,€827€(Okla.€1986);€òòSullivan€v.ÏScoular€Grain€Co.€of€Utahóó,€853€P.2d€877,€878€(Utah€1993).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€3Ôò òComparative€fault„„Joinder€of€third€partyÏdefendants.„„ó ó(a)€€In€civil€actions€where€comparative€faultÏis€or€becomes€an€issue,€if€a€defendant€named€in€an€originalÏcomplaint€initiating€a€suit€filed€within€the€applicableÏstatute€of€limitations,€or€named€in€an€amended€complaint€filedÏwithin€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations,€alleges€in€anÏanswer€or€amended€answer€to€the€original€or€amended€complaintÏthat€a€person€not€a€party€to€the€suit€caused€or€contributed€toÏthe€injury€or€damage€for€which€the€plaintiff€seeks€recovery,Ïand€if€the€plaintiff's€cause€or€causes€of€action€against€suchÏperson€would€be€barred€by€any€applicable€statute€ofÏlimitations€but€for€the€operation€of€this€section,€theÏplaintiff€may,€within€ninety€(90)€days€of€the€filing€of€theÏfirst€answer€or€first€amended€answer€alleging€such€person'sÏfault,€either:ÌÌà à(1)€Amend€the€complaint€to€add€such€person€as€a€defendantÏpursuant€to€Rule€l5€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÏand€cause€process€to€be€issued€for€that€person;€or€ÌÌà à(2)€Institute€a€separate€action€against€that€person€byÏfiling€a€summons€and€complaint.€€If€the€plaintiff€elects€toÏproceed€under€this€section€by€filing€a€separate€action,€theÏcomplaint€so€filed€shall€not€be€considered€an€"originalÏcomplaint€initiating€the€suit"€or€"an€amended€complaint"€forÏpurposes€of€this€subsection.Ì DÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔòòSeeÔ€2Ôóó€Ô€3ÔòòOwens€v.€Truckstopsóó,€_____€S.W.2d€_____€(Tenn.€1995).€Ì ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔòòSeeÔ€2Ôóó€Ô€3ÔòòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869€(Tenn.€l993).€ÏÌÔ€2Ô ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔWhen€the€employment€is€not€covered€under€the€Workers'ÏCompensation€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„106,€principles€ofÏtort€liability€apply.€€òòSeeóó€òòPerez€v.€McConkeyóó,€872€S.W.2d€897,Ï899,€n.€1€(Tenn.€l994).Ì 4Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔFor€example,€in€òòVolz€v.€Ledesóó,€895€S.W.2d€677€(Tenn.Ï1995),€a€medical€malpractice€case,€the€jury€apportioned€l0Ïpercent€of€the€liability€to€the€plaintiff,€45€percent€to€aÏnon„resident€physician€who€was€not€a€party€to€the€suit,€and€45Ïpercent€to€the€defendant.€€òòId.óó€at€677.€€This€Court€affirmedÏthe€judgment€against€the€defendant€for€45€percent€of€the€totalÏdamages.€€Even€though€the€plaintiff€had€a€cause€of€actionÏagainst€the€non„resident€tortfeasor,€that€cause€of€action€wasÏnot€asserted€and€the€proportion€of€the€loss€attributed€to€thatÏdefendant€was€borne€by€the€plaintiff.€€òòId.óó€at€680.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(83‚ª$¢¢Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÓ&€11X„d&ÓÑ#€11Xd#ÑÔ€2ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ , ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€™sXXdÈdÈ7ÑÔ€3ÔÖ€4ÖÓ` °Xˆ,‹XÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJanuary€29,€1996Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURTÏOF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€796;+'h|Gc` à. `€€LßÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌDAVID€E.€RIDINGS€AND€VICKEYà à(ÌL.€RIDINGS,à àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,à à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€ShelbyÏCircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.ÏJanice€M.€Holder,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€No.€02„S„01„9406„CV„00032Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌTHE€RALPH€M.€PARSONS€COMPANY;à à(ÌPRECISION€STAIR€CORPORATION;à à(ÌWALKER€AND€SONS€FABRICATION€&à à(ÌERECTION€COMPANY,€INC.;€S&Eà à(ÌCONSTRUCTION€CO.,€INC.;€ANDà à(ÌKTM€ASSOCIATES,€INC.,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendants„Appellees.à à(ÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ h ÒÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÓÓÌòòFor€Plaintiffs„Appellantsóó:€€à àà àòòForÏDefendants„Appelleesóó:ÌÓÓÌMichael€W.€Whitakerà àà àà àà àLouis€F.€AllenÌCovingtonà àà àà àà àà àà àThomas€L.€ParkerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWaring€CoxÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphisÌOF€COUNSEL:Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLeo€Bearman,€Jr.ÌDale€H.€Tuttleà àà àà àà àà àMonique€A.€NassarÌRichard€H.€Boothà àà àà àà àHeiskell,€Donelson,€Bearman,ÌMcDonald€Kuhnà àà àà àà àà àà àAdams,€Williams€&€CaldwellÌMemphisà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphisÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€L.€J.€Spence,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPeter€J.€DausterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àThe€Hardison€Law€FirmÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphisÌÌÌà@ àÔ€3„ÔÔ€ Ôòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€3ÔÔ€3XÔÌÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌREVERSED;€CASE€REMANDED€TOÌTRIAL€COURT.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÇÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓÓà àThis€interlocutory€appeal€presents€for€resolution€aÏnarrow€question€of€law.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafterÏdiscussed,€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€allowing€aÏdefendant€in€an€action€for€damages€for€personal€injuries€toÏplead€as€an€affirmative€defense€that€the€plaintiff's€employerÏcaused€or€contributed€to€the€plaintiff's€injuries,€isÏreversed.ÌÌà@ àòòò òPleadingsóóó óÌÌà àThis€is€an€action€for€personal€injuries€sustained€byÏthe€plaintiff€David€E.€Ridings,€when€he€fell€from€a€ladderÏduring€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment€by€CBI„Nacon,ÏInc.€€The€complaint,€filed€on€January22,€1991,€alleges€anÏaction€in€negligence,€gross€negligence€and€strict€liabilityÏagainst€the€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Company,€Precision€StairÏCorporation,€Walker€and€Sons€Fabrication€&€Erection€Company,ÏInc.,€S€&€E€Construction€Co.,€Inc.,€and€KTM€Associates,€Inc.€€ÌÌà àAfter€the€release€of€this€Court's€opinion€inÏòòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992),€on€May4,Í1992,€each€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€amend€its€answer€toÏassert€as€an€affirmative€defense€that€other€parties€orÏnonparties,€including€but€not€limited€to€CBI„Nacon,Ïproximately€caused€or€contributed€to€the€plaintiff's€injuries.€ÏThe€trial€court€allowed€the€answers€to€be€amended€except€as€toÏthe€affirmative€defense€that€the€plaintiff's€employer€wasÏnegligent.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€decision€of€theÏtrial€court€as€to€the€employer,€holding€that,€pursuant€toÏòòMcIntyreóó,€the€defendants€are€entitled€to€allege€that€theÏplaintiff's€employer€was€negligent€and€assert€that€allegedÏnegligence€as€an€affirmative€defense.€ÌÌà@ àòòò òStandard€of€Reviewóóó óÌÌà àThe€issue€presented€is€a€question€of€law€raised€byÏthe€defendants'€motions€to€amend€their€answers.€€Consequently,Ïthe€scope€of€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€no€presumption€ofÏcorrectness.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);ÌòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonóó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€9l€(Tenn.Ï1993).ÌÌà@ àòòò òIssueóóó óÌÌà àThe€issue€presented€is€whether€the€defendants€inÏthis€suit€for€personal€injuries€based€on€allegations€ofÏnegligence€and€strict€liability€in€tort€can€assert€as€anÏaffirmative€defense€that€the€plaintiff's€employer€caused€orÏcontributed€to€the€plaintiff's€injuries€and€damages,Ïnotwithstanding€that€the€injuries€alleged€were€sustained€inÏthe€course€and€scope€of€the€plaintiff's€employment€which€wasÏcovered€by€the€workers'€compensation€law€of€Tennessee.€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€contends€that€allowing€the€jury€toÏattribute€fault€to€the€plaintiff's€employer,€against€whom€theÏplaintiff€cannot€maintain€an€action€for€damages,€violates€theÏòòMcIntyreóó€principle€that€the€"plaintiff's€damages€are€to€beÏreduced€in€proportion€to€the€percentage€of€the€totalÏnegligence€attributable€to€the€plaintiff."€€òòMcIntyre€v.ÏBalentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€57.ÌÌà àThe€defendants€counter€that€excluding€theÏplaintiff's€employer€from€those€persons€to€whom€fault€may€beÍattributed€violates€the€òòMcIntyreóó€principle€that€defendantsÏwill€be€"liable€only€for€the€percentage€of€a€plaintiff'sÏdamages€occasioned€by€that€defendant's€negligence."€€òòId.óó€atÏ58.ÌÌà àThe€issue€presented€was€anticipated€but€not€decidedÏin€òòMcIntyreóó.€€There,€the€Court€observed€that€the€treatment€ofÏnonparties€"should€await€an€appropriate€controversy."€€òòId.óó€atÏ60.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òAnalysisóóó óÌÌà àThis€is€a€transitional€case€which€must€be€triedÏaccording€to€the€principles€of€comparative€fault€to€the€extentÏthat€the€application€of€those€principles€does€not€impose€uponÏany€party€a€substantial€injustice.€€òòId.óó€at€58;€òòOwens€v.ÏTruckstops€of€Americaóó,€_____€S.W.2d€_____,€_____€(Tenn.€1995)Ï[slip€op.€at€7].€€However,€application€of€comparative€faultÏprinciples€to€this€case€requires€no€transitional€procedure.€ÏThe€Court€finds€that€the€acts€and€omissions€of€an€employerÏcovered€by€the€worker's€compensation€law€neither€enlarge€norÍlimit€the€rights€or€liabilities€of€any€party€to€a€tort€actionÏby€an€employee€governed€by€the€doctrine€of€comparative€fault.ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€release€of€òòMcIntyreóó,€the€defendantsÏcould€be€held€jointly€and€severally€liable€for€the€full€burdenÏof€the€plaintiff's€damages€even€if€the€acts€or€omissions€ofÏthe€employer€or€the€plaintiff's€fellow€employees€hadÏcontributed€to€the€plaintiff's€injuries.€€Also,€each€of€theÏdefendants€found€liable€could€assert€a€claim€for€contributionÏor€indemnity€against€the€other€defendants€and€third„partyÏdefendants,€but€not€against€the€employer.€€The€rule€was€well„stated€in€òòRupe€v.€Durbin€Durco,€Inc.óó,€557€S.W.2d€742€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1976),€òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó,€òòCrosslin€v.€Alsupóó,Ï594€S.W.2d€379€(Tenn.€1980).€€That€court€held€that€where€aÏthird„party€tortfeasor€is€found€liable€for€injuries€to€aÏworker,€the€third€party€may€not€seek€indemnity€from€theÏworker's€employer€if€the€employer€was€liable€under€theÏworkers'€compensation€laws.× ƒ: ××  ×€€The€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€Workmen's€Compensation€laws€areÏdesigned€to€liberalize€the€basis€forÏemployees'€claims€against€employers€forÏaccidental€injuries€arising€out€of€and€inÏthe€course€of€employment.€€However,€suchÏlaws€restrict€the€amount€of€damages€byÏexcluding€pain€and€suffering.€€TheÏTennessee€Contribution€Among€TortfeasorsÏAct€expressly€prohibits€contributionÏunder€the€Workmen's€Compensation€laws.ÌÌà8 à.€.€.€To€permit€indemnity€against€anÏemployer€would€in€effect€permit€a€thirdÏparty€tortfeasor€to€indirectly€force€anÏemployer€to€pay€for€pain€and€suffering.€ÏThe€employee€is€not€entitled€to€thisÏunder€the€Workmen's€Compensation€Act.ÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€749„50.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€decision€in€òòMcIntyreóó€obviously€does€not€allowÏthe€employer€to€be€held€liable€directly,€as€a€defendant€in€theÏemployee's€suit€for€damages,× ƒ; ××  ×€or€indirectly,€as€a€jointÏtortfeasor€liable€for€contribution€or€indemnity.€€However,€theÏdefendants€insist€that€fault€can€be€attributed€to€theÏemployer,€and€the€liability€of€the€defendants€can€be€decreasedÏaccordingly,€without€the€imposition€of€liability€upon€theÍemployer.€€This€proposition€is€not€consistent€with€theÏTennessee€doctrine€of€comparative€fault.€€ÌÌà àThe€principle€of€several€liability€amongÏtortfeasors,€announced€in€òòMcIntyreóó,€provides€the€policy€basisÏfor€the€decision€in€this€case.€€In€òòMcIntyreóó,€the€Court€setÏforth€the€framework€for€determining€liability€on€the€defendantÏside€of€the€equation.€€ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€Fourth,€fairness€and€efficiencyÏrequire€that€defendants€called€upon€toÏanswer€allegations€in€negligence€beÏpermitted€to€allege,€as€an€affirmativeÏdefense,€that€a€nonparty€caused€orÏcontributed€to€the€injury€or€damage€forÏwhich€recovery€is€sought.€€In€cases€whereÏsuch€a€defense€is€raised,€the€trial€courtÏshall€instruct€the€jury€to€assign€thisÏnonparty€the€percentage€of€the€totalÏnegligence€for€which€he€is€responsible.€ÏHowever,€in€order€for€a€plaintiff€toÏrecover€a€judgment€against€suchÏadditional€person,€the€plaintiff€mustÏhave€made€a€timely€amendment€to€hisÏcomplaint€and€caused€process€to€be€servedÏon€such€additional€person.€€Thereafter,Ïthe€additional€party€will€be€required€toÏanswer€the€amended€complaint.€€TheÏprocedures€shall€be€in€accordance€withÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.ÌÌÌÌòòMcIntyre€v.€Balentineóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€58.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€rationale€of€òòMcIntyreóó€postulates€that€fault€mayÏbe€attributed€only€to€those€persons€against€whom€the€plaintiffÏhas€a€cause€of€action€in€tort.€€The€designation€"nonparty,"Ïused€in€òòMcIntyreóó,€is€not€a€term€of€art;€it€means€"not€aÏparty."× ƒ< ××  ×€€However,€it€is€given€a€particular€meaning€by€theÏdecision€in€òòMcIntyreóó,€wherein€the€Court€found€that,€upon€aÏdefendant's€allegation€that€a€person€not€a€party€to€the€suit,Ïa€"nonparty,"€caused€or€contributed€to€the€plaintiff'sÏinjuries,€the€plaintiff,€by€amendment€to€the€complaint€andÏservice€of€process,€may€make€the€"nonparty"€a€"party"€that€isÏanswerable€to€the€plaintiff€in€actions€for€damages€accordingÏto€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Consequently,€only€aÏnonparty€against€whom€the€plaintiff€has€a€cause€of€action€canÏbe€made€a€party.€€Since€the€plaintiff's€employer€cannot€beÏmade€a€party€to€the€plaintiff's€tort€action€for€personalÏinjuries€sustained€in€the€course€and€scope€of€his€employment,Ïthe€rationale€of€òòMcIntyreóó,€both€as€to€principle€and€procedure,Íwill€not€permit€fault€to€be€attributed€to€the€plaintiff'sÏemployer.× ƒ= ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThis€conclusion€is€confirmed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÍ20„1„119(a)€(l994),× ƒ> ××  ×€which€was€enacted€in€furtherance€of€theÏTennessee€doctrine€of€comparative€fault.€€Although€thatÏstatute€is€not€applicable€to€this€case,× ƒ? ××  ×€it€contemplates€thatÏthose€persons€to€whom€fault€may€be€attributed€are€limited€toÏthose€against€whom€liability€for€the€plaintiff's€damages€mayÏbe€asserted.€€The€second€condition€in€subsection€(a),€"if€theÍòòplaintiff's€cause€or€causes€of€action€against€such€personóóÏwould€be€barred€by€any€applicable€statute€of€limitations,"Ïlimits€the€operation€of€the€statute€to€"a€person€not€a€partyÏto€the€suit"€against€whom€the€plaintiff€has€a€cause€of€action.€ÏThe€statute€also€contemplates€that€the€plaintiff's€cause€ofÏaction€against€that€person€may€be€asserted€according€toÏRule15,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€or€in€a€separateÏaction.€€The€principles€of€liability€acknowledged€in€SectionÏ20„1„119,€and€the€procedure€authorized€to€enforce€thatÏliability,€preclude€the€attribution€of€fault€to€theÏplaintiff's€employer,€which€is€not€"a€person€not€a€party€toÏthe€suit"€against€whom€the€plaintiff€has€a€cause€of€action.€ÌÌà àThis€conclusion€is€also€consistent,€on€principle,Ïwith€provisions€of€the€Contribution€Among€Tortfeasors€Act,€notÏaddressed€in€òòMcIntyreóó,€which€prohibit€the€assessment€ofÏliability€against€persons€to€whom€immunity€has€been€granted.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„11„102(a)€(1980)€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[N]o€right€of€contribution€shall€existÏwhere,€by€virtue€of€intrafamily€immunity,Ïimmunity€under€the€workers'€compensationÏlaws€of€the€state€of€Tennessee,€or€likeÍimmunity,€a€claimant€is€barred€fromÏmaintaining€a€tort€action€for€injury€orÏwrongful€death€against€the€party€fromÏwhom€contribution€is€sought.ÌÌà8 àÌÌÓÓAllowing€a€tortfeasor€to€assert€fault€against€a€party€that€isÏimmune€from€suit,€and€thereby€reduce€the€tortfeasor's€faultÏand€consequent€liability,€would€not€be€consistent€with€thisÏprovision,€which€denies€to€tortfeasors€the€right€to€assertÏfault€as€the€basis€for€liability€where,€by€statute€or€commonÏlaw,€immunity€from€suit€has€been€granted.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendants'€argument€that€the€employer€may€beÏfound€to€be€a€negligent€tortfeasor€along€with€some€or€all€ofÏthe€defendants€even€though€no€liability€could€be€imposed€uponÏit,€fails€to€recognize€some€significant€principles€of€law.€ÏAttribution€of€fault€is€the€basis€for€imposing€liability.€€AtÏleast€two€of€the€several€conditions€necessary€for€theÏimposition€of€liability,€the€duty€of€care€and€proximate€cause,× ƒ@ ××  ×Ïare€not€found€in€the€employer„employee€relationship.€€ÌThe€duty€owed€a€worker€by€the€employer€is€not€measured€by€theÍstandard€of€care€applicable€in€actions€based€on€negligence€orÏstrict€liability.× ƒA ××  ×€€In€addition,€the€employer's€acts€cannot€beÏthe€legal€or€proximate€cause€of€the€employee's€injuries,ÏòòJordan€v.€United€Methodist€Urban€Ministries,€Inc.óó,€740€S.W.2dÏ411,€412€(Tenn.€1987),€because€there€is€a€well„defined€publicÏpolicy€for€not€imposing€tort€liability€on€the€employer.ÏòòClanton€v.€Cain„Sloan€Co.óó,€677€S.W.2d€441,€443€(Tenn.€1984).€ÏThe€Court€explained€the€essentials€of€proximate€cause€inÏòòKilpatrick€v.€Bryantóó,€868€S.W.2d€594€(Tenn.€l993):ÌÌÓÓà8 à"Causation€(or€cause€in€fact)€is€a€veryÏdifferent€concept€from€that€of€proximateÏcause.€€Causation€refers€to€the€cause€andÏeffect€relationship€between€the€tortiousÏconduct€and€the€injury.€€The€doctrine€ofÏproximate€cause€encompasses€the€wholeÏpanoply€of€rules€that€may€deny€liabilityÏfor€otherwise€actionable€causes€of€harm."ÏThus,€proximate€cause,€or€legal€cause,Ïconcerns€a€determination€of€whether€legalÏliability€should€be€imposed€where€causeÏin€fact€has€been€established.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€598€(quoting€King,€òòCausation,€Valuation,€and€Chance€inÍPersonal€Injury€Torts€Involving€Preexisting€Injuries€andÏFuture€Consequencesóó,€90€Yale€L.J.€l353,€l355€n.€7€(1981)).ÌÌà àLimiting€the€parties€to€whom€fault€may€be€attributedÏto€those€subject€to€liability,€accomplishes€the€policyÏobjectives€of€fairness€and€efficiency.€€Since€liability€isÏseveral€and€is€in€direct€proportion€to€legal€fault,€eachÏdefendant€will€be€liable€only€for€the€percentage€of€theÏdamages€caused€by€it.€€Since€fault€is€limited€to€the€plaintiffÏand€those€against€whom€the€plaintiff€has€a€cause€of€action,Ïthe€plaintiff€is€not€denied€the€right€to€recover€those€damagesÏto€which€it€is€entitled.€€However,€the€plaintiff€will€bear€theÏloss€for€any€liability€that€it€fails€or€is€unable€to€assertÏand€any€judgment€that€cannot€be€enforced.× ƒB ××  ×€€ÌÌà àRule€8.03,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€insures€that€the€rightsÏand€liabilities€of€the€parties€subject€to€suit€be€resolved€inÏone€action.€€Section€20„1„119€provides€the€procedure€forÏjoining€additional€defendants,€but€it€does€not€address€theÏeffect€of€a€defendant's€failure€to€allege€that€a€nonpartyÏcaused€or€contributed€to€the€plaintiff's€damages€or€theÏplaintiff's€failure€to€make€those€persons€defendants.€ÏHowever,€Rule€8.03€requires€that€"comparative€fault€(includingÏthe€identity€or€description€of€any€other€alleged€tortfeasors)"Ïbe€pled€as€an€affirmative€defense.€€Failure€of€the€defendantÏto€identify€other€potential€tortfeasors€would€preclude€theÏattribution€of€fault€against€such€persons€and€would€result€inÏthe€defendant€being€liable€for€all€damages€except€thoseÏattributable€to€the€fault€of€the€plaintiff.€€Failure€of€theÏplaintiff€to€assert€its€cause€of€action€against€such€personsÏwho€are€to€have€caused€or€contributed€to€the€injury€or€damageÏalleged€by€the€defendant€pursuant€to€Section€20„1„119,€wouldÏnot€preclude€the€assessment€of€fault€against€such€persons€butÏwould€preclude€the€award€of€damages€against€such€persons.€€TheÏgoals€of€efficiency€and€fairness€are€thus€served€by€joining€asÏdefendants€all€persons€against€whom€the€plaintiff€can€assert€aÍcause€of€action.€€òòSeeóó€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€(1995).ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òConclusionóóó óÌÌà àThe€result€is€that€the€plaintiff's€right€to€recoverÏon€allegations€of€negligence€and€strict€liability€isÏdetermined€without€reference€to€the€employer's€conduct.€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€reversed,Ïand€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€to€the€defendants.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Birch,€andÌ€€€€€White,€JJ.€€ÌÌ