ÿWPC– …# V %a 0(gw@4Ïã‚ò Bt 0Æ‘ 0DW b› U:£ U:Ý U: Q 0JY 0T£ 0^÷ 0hU 0r½ 0|/ 0†« 01 1uÁU,6 0dbU,ÆU *òB)DCE D3ˆ AM» 0@*Yƒv~ vÓ AOñÆ@ 0D D/J By˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 X($¡¡   U Re  D  Ó€  Dz!úÿÿú:!ú 3|x sharp Ì , ' ^<ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ0^<ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ .    d(v(2P¡$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X„­XXXÔÔ€ôz˜ôXX„­Ôà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd 'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òSeptember€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„105(a)€(1980€&€Supp.€€1995).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„103(a)€(1980).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€„­XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Ó›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEE̛̜à@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌœÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€ò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóó›ÌœÌRAY›€F.€SHARP,€JR.€andà àà àà à)ÌNELL€SHARP,à àà àà àà àœ)à àò òòòFILED:€€September€16,Ï1996ó ó›óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìœà à›à àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àœ)›Ìœà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€SHELBY€CIRCUITÌ›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœÌVs›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌœà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌ›à àà àà àà àà àà àœ)à àHON.€GEORGE€H.€BROWN,€JR.,›ÌGREER€E.€RICHARDSON,€M.D.,à àœ)à àà à€€€€JUDGE›ÌCAMPBELL€CLINIC,€INC.,€andà àà à)ÌPFIZER€HOSPITAL€PRODUCTSà àà à)ÌGROUP,€INC.,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìœà à›à àDefendants/Appellees.à àœ)à à€€No.€02„S„01„9509„CV„00083›ÌÌ̛̜ÌÌœòòò òFor€Appellants:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellees,€Greer€E.ÏRichardson,€à àà àà àà àà àà àM.D.€and€CampbellÏClinic,€Inc.:ó óóó›ÌœEverett€B.€Gibson›ÌœEverett€B.€Gibson€Law€Firmà àà àBuckner€WellfordÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àTHOMASON,€HENDRIX,€HARVEY,€à àà àà àà àà àà à€ÏJOHNSON€&€MITCHELLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFor€Appellee,€Pfizer€Hospital€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àProducts€Group,€Inc.:óóó óÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPhilip€E.€MischkeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWYATT€TARRANT€&€COMBSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€Tennessee›ÌœÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€+,);+'h|3` Å `€€Lß›ÌÌÌÌÌœò òÔ€'„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€'XÔÌÌÌ̛̜REVERSED›€AND€œREMANDED.›à àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€œJ.›€€ÇÓÓÑ7€„­XXdæXXdæ7Ñà àThe€dispositive€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€Tennessee€savingsÏstatute× ƒ. ××  ×€applies€to€save€an€action€which€was€initially€filed€within€the€one„yearÏproducts€liability€statute€of€limitations€and€the€products€liability€statute€ofÏrepose× ƒ/ ××  ×,€but€which€was€voluntarily€dismissed€and€refiled€beyond€the€six„yearÏstatute€of€repose.€€We€hold€that€it€does.€€The€Court€of€Appeals'€judgment€isÏreversed€and€the€cause€remanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓBACKGROUNDó óóóÌÓ  Óà àFor€purposes€of€this€appeal,€the€facts€are€not€disputed.€€On€May€24,€1984,Ïplaintiff€Ray€Sharp€sustained€multiple€injuries€in€an€automobile„train€accident€inÏMemphis,€Tennessee,€including€a€severely€comminuted€fracture€of€the€femur€inÏhis€right€leg.€€On€June€11,€1984,€defendant€Dr.€Greer€E.€Richardson,€anÏorthopedic€surgeon€affiliated€with€defendant€Campbell€Clinic,€performedÏsurgery€to€repair€the€fracture€and€utilized€a€Gross„Kempf€locking€intermedullaryÏrod,€also€called€an€intramedullary€nail,€which€was€manufactured€by€defendantÏPfizer€Hospital€Products€Group,€Inc.,€(hereafter€ð ðPfizerðð).€€About€three€monthsÏlater,€Sharp€began€experiencing€pain€and€was€re„hospitalized.€€X„rays€takenÏrevealed€that€the€intermedullary€rod€inserted€into€Sharpððs€femur€had€broken.€€ÍOn€September€19,€1984,€Campbell€Clinic€physicians€other€than€RichardsonÏperformed€a€second€surgery€to€remove€and€replace€the€broken€rod.€€However,Ïx„rays€taken€approximately€six€months€later€revealed€that€the€new€rod,€alsoÏmanufactured€by€Pfizer,€had€broken.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs,€Ray€and€Nell€Sharp,€filed€suit€on€August€6,€1985,€allegingÏthat€Richardson€and€Campbell€Clinic€were€liable€for€medical€malpracticeÏbecause€Richardson€failed€to€supply€appropriate€information€regardingÏcomplications€that€could€result€from€the€use€of€the€intramedullary€rod€and€itsÏfailure€rate,€and€because€he€failed€to€advise€Sharp€that€he€should€remain€non„weight€bearing€for€a€specified€period€of€time.€€As€to€Pfizer,€the€complaint€allegedÏthat€the€corporation€manufactured€and€distributed€a€product€that€was€in€aÏdefective€condition€which€rendered€it€unreasonably€dangerous€and€unfit€for€theÏpurposes€for€which€it€was€intended.€€Plaintiffs€therefore€alleged€strict€productsÏliability,€breach€of€the€warranty€of€fitness€and€merchantability,€and€failure€toÏwarn.ÌÌà àSince€the€initial€failure€occurred€on€September€14,€1984,€and€suit€wasÏfiled€on€August€6,€1985,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€plaintiffs€initially€filed€theÏcomplaint€€within€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations,€the€three„year€medicalÍmalpractice€statute€of€repose,€and€the€six„year€products€liability€statute€ofÏrepose.ÌÌà àWhen€the€case€finally€came€to€trial,€however,€plaintiffs€moved€for€aÏvoluntary€dismissal,€which€was€granted€without€prejudice€on€April€3,€1991.€€LessÏthan€one€year€after€the€order€of€voluntary€dismissal,€the€Sharps€refiled€theirÏaction€on€April€1,€1992,€alleging€the€same€claims€of€medical€malpractice€andÏproducts€liability€against€the€same€defendants.€They€relied€upon€the€TennesseeÏsavings€statute€which€provides€that€if€an€action€is€filed€within€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€and€a€judgment€of€dismissal€is€entered€on€any€ground€not€concludingÏthe€right€of€action,€the€action€may€be€refiled€within€one€year€after€the€dismissal.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„105(a)€(1980€&€Supp.€1995).€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendants€responded€by€moving€for€summary€judgment€on€theÏgrounds€that€the€refiled€action€was€barred.€€Defendants€Richardson€andÏCampbell€Clinic€relied€upon€the€three„year€medical€malpractice€statute€ofÏrepose,€which€provides€that€no€medical€malpractice€action€shall€be€broughtÏmore€than€three€years€after€the€date€on€which€the€negligent€act€occurred.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€29„26„116(a)(3)€(1980).€€Similarly,€defendant€Pfizer€alleged€thatÏthe€plaintiffsðð€claims€against€it€were€barred€by€the€products€liability€statute€ofÍrepose,€€which€requires€actions€to€be€brought€within€six€years€of€the€date€ofÏinjury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„103(a)€(1980).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€denied€the€defendantsðð€motions,€but€granted€themÏpermission€to€seek€an€interlocutory€appeal.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€theÏtrial€courtððs€decision€and€dismissed€the€complaint,€concluding€that€the€savingsÏstatute€does€not€ð ðsaveðð€an€action€that€was€refiled€beyond€the€applicable€statuteÏof€repose.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€the€plaintiffsðð€permission€to€appeal€and€nowÏreverse.ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓMEDICAL€MALPRACTICE€STATUTE€OF€REPOSEóóó óÌÓ  Óà àOur€analysis€of€whether€the€savings€statute€saves€an€action€refiledÏbeyond€the€three„year€medical€malpractice€statute€of€repose€is€governed€by€ourÏrecent€decision€in€òòCronin€v.€Howeóó,€906€S.W.2d€910€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€that€case,Ïwe€held€that€a€plaintiff€who€initially€files€a€medical€malpractice€action€within€theÏone„year€statute€of€limitations€and€the€three„year€statute€of€repose€can€rely€uponÏthe€savings€statute€and€refile€the€action€within€one€year€of€a€voluntary€dismissal,Ïeven€though€the€voluntary€dismissal€and€refiling€occur€beyond€the€three„yearÏmedical€malpractice€statute€of€repose.€€òòIdóóòò.óó€at€915.€€Indeed,€in€this€Court,Ïdefendants€Richardson€and€Campbell€Clinic€concede€that€òòCroninóó,€which€wasÍdecided€during€the€pendency€of€their€appeal,€controls€the€disposition€of€thisÏcase€and€requires€a€reversal€of€the€Court€of€Appeals'€decision€dismissing€theÏplaintiffs€claim€for€medical€malpractice.€ÌÌà àIt€is€undisputed€that€in€this€case,€the€plaintiffs€initially€filed€suit€within€bothÏthe€medical€malpractice€one„year€statute€of€limitations€and€the€three„yearÏmedical€malpractice€statute€of€repose.€€It€is€also€undisputed€that€the€suit€wasÏvoluntarily€dismissed€without€prejudice,€and€that€the€suit€was€refiled€within€oneÏyear€of€the€voluntary€dismissal.€€Accordingly,€it€is€clear€that€under€òòCroninóó,€theÏplaintiffsðð€second€suit€was€timely€filed€under€the€savings€statute,€even€though€itÏwas€refiled€beyond€the€statute€of€repose.€€€We,€therefore,€reverse€the€Court€ofÏAppeals'€judgment€dismissing€the€plaintiffsðð€medical€malpractice€claims.ÌÌòòò òà@ àPRODUCTS€LIABILITY€STATUTE€OF€REPOSEóóó óÌà àWe€are€asked€to€answer€a€different€but€analogous€question€„€one€of€firstÏimpression€„€whether€the€savings€statute€applies€to€save€an€action€that€is€timelyÏfiled€within€both€the€products€liability€statute€of€limitations€and€statute€of€repose,Ïbut€refiled€beyond€the€six„year€statute€of€repose.€€To€resolve€this€issue,€we€mustÏexamine€the€express€language€of€both€the€products€liability€statute€of€reposeÏand€the€savings€statute,€as€well€as€their€underlying€purposes.€€In€performing€thisÍanalysis,€we€observe€and€apply€the€familiar€rules€of€statutory€construction€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€role€of€this€Court€in€construing€statutes€is€toÏascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€legislative€intent.€.€.€.€ÏA€construction€which€places€one€statute€in€conflictÏwith€another€must€be€avoided;€therefore,€we€mustÏresolve€any€possible€conflict€between€statutes€inÏfavor€of€each€other,€so€as€to€provide€a€harmoniousÏoperation€of€the€laws.ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€912€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌà àThe€products€liability€statute€of€repose€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà8 àAny€action€against€a€manufacturer€or€seller€of€a€product€forÏinjury€to€person€or€property€caused€by€its€defective€orÏunreasonably€dangerous€condition€must€be€brought€withinÏthe€period€fixed€by€ðððð€28„3„104,€28„3„105,€28„3„202€andÏ47„2„725,€òòbut€notwithstanding€any€exceptions€to€theseÏprovisionsóó€it€must€be€brought€within€six€years€of€the€date€ofÏinjury,€in€any€event,€the€action€must€be€brought€within€tenÏ(10)€years€from€the€date€on€which€the€product€was€firstÏpurchased€for€use€or€consumption,€or€within€one€(1)€yearÏafter€the€expiration€of€the€anticipated€life€of€the€product,Ïwhichever€is€shorter,€except€in€the€case€of€injury€to€minorsÏwhose€action€must€be€brought€within€a€period€of€one€(1)Ïyear€after€attaining€the€age€of€majority,€whichever€occursÏsooner.ÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„103(a)€(1980€&€Supp.€1995)€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àThe€express€language€of€the€savings€statute€provides€that:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà8 àIf€the€action€is€commenced€within€the€time€limited€by€a€ruleÏor€statute€of€limitation,€but€the€judgment€or€decree€isÏrendered€against€the€plaintiff€upon€any€ground€notÏconcluding€the€plaintiffððs€right€of€action,€or€where€theÏjudgment€or€decree€is€rendered€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€andÏis€arrested,€or€reversed€on€appeal,€the€plaintiff,€or€theÏplaintiffððs€representatives€and€privies,€as€the€case€may€be,Ïmay,€from€time€to€time,€commence€a€new€action€within€oneÏ(1)€year€after€the€reversal€or€arrest.ÌÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„105(a)€(1980€&€Supp.€1995).€ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€Court,€Pfizer€argues€that€unlike€the€medical€malpractice€statute€ofÏrepose,€the€plain€language€of€the€products€liability€statute€of€repose,Ïð ðnotwithstanding€any€exceptions€to€these€provisions,ðð€specifically€excludesÏexceptions€to€the€statute€of€limitations,€like€the€savings€statute.€€In€addition,Ïaccording€to€Pfizer,€the€language€necessarily€includes€the€savings€statute€as€anÏexception€because€the€savings€statute€was€enacted€prior€to€the€products€liabilityÏstatute€of€repose,€and€the€Legislature€is€presumed€to€have€knowledge€of€itsÏprior€enactments€and€to€know€the€state€of€the€law€at€the€time€it€passesÏlegislation.€€òòWilson€v.€Johnson€Countyóó,€879€S.W.2d€807,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€ÍPfizer,€therefore,€contends€that€the€plaintiffsðð€action€is€barred€since€it€was€refiledÏalmost€eight€years€after€the€injury€occurred.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs,€on€the€other€hand,€contend€that€the€savings€statute€is€notÏencompassed€within€the€term€ð ðexceptionðð€used€in€the€statute€of€repose€becauseÏa€litigant€cannot€avail€himself€or€herself€of€the€benefits€of€the€savings€statuteÏunless€he€or€she€first€files€the€action€within€ð ðthe€time€limited€by€a€rule€or€statuteÏof€limitation.ðð€ÌÌà àAs€we€observed€in€òòCroninóó,€the€Tennessee€savings€statute€is€remedialÏand€was€enacted€to€afford€a€òòdiligentóó€plaintiff€the€opportunity€to€renew€a€suit€thatÏwas€dismissed€without€concluding€the€plaintiffððs€right€of€action.€€òòIdóó.€at€912,€(òòcitingóóÏòòDukes€v.€Montgomery€County€Nursing€Homeóó,€639€S.W.2d€910,€913€(Tenn.Ï1982)€(emphasis€added)).€€Indeed,€we€said€many€years€ago€thatÌÓÓÌà0 àà8 à[t]he€statute€has€not€merely€letter€but€a€spirit.€€That€spirit€isÏmanifested€in€the€history€of€the€statute.€.€.€.€€It€is€that€a€plaintiffÏshall€not€be€finally€cast€out€by€the€force€of€any€judgment€orÏdecree€whatsoever,€not€concluding€his€right€of€action,Ïwithout€an€opportunity€to€sue€again€within€the€brief€periodÏlimited.ÌÌÌòòÓÓNashville,€C€&€St.€L.€Ry.€v.€Boltonóó,€134€Tenn.€447,€184€S.W.€9,€11€(1916).€ÏAccordingly,€the€statute€has€long€been€liberally€construed€in€order€to€bringÏcases€within€its€spirit€and€fair€intention.€€òòCroninóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€913.€ÌÌà àIn€contrast€to€the€long€history€of€the€savings€statute,€the€products€liabilityÏstatute€of€repose€was€enacted€in€1978€as€part€of€a€comprehensive€legislativeÏpackage.€€The€stated€purpose€of€the€products€liability€statute€of€repose€was€toÏprovide€a€ð ðspecific€period€of€time€for€which€product€liability€insurance€premiumsÏcan€be€reasonably€and€accurately€calculated.ðð€€Tenn.€Public€Acts€1978,€ch.€703,Ïðð€1.€€In€other€words,€the€products€liability€statute€of€repose€was€designed€to€limitÏthe€time€within€which€a€suit€alleging€products€liability€may€be€brought€andÏthereby€address€the€actuarial€concerns€of€the€insurance€industry€and€allow€forÏaccurate€assessment€of€liability€exposure€for€insurance€purposes.€€The€six„yearÏlimit€here€was€intended€by€the€Legislature€to€provide€certainty€as€to€the€timeÏperiod€during€which€product€manufacturers€and€sellers€could€be€subject€toÏpotential€liability.ÌÌà àThe€role€of€the€Court€in€construing€statutes€is€to€ascertain€and€give€effectÏto€the€legislative€intent.€€906€S.W.2d€at€912.€€Whenever€possible,€courts€shouldÏavoid€conflict€between€statutes€and€construe€them€harmoniously.€€òòIdóó.€€If€thisÍCourt€were€to€adopt€Pfizerððs€position,€the€purpose€of€the€savings€statute€wouldÏbe€frustrated€and€such€a€construction€would€amount€to€a€repeal€by€implication,Ïwhich€is€disfavored.€€òòSeeóó€òòJenkins€v.€Loudon€Countyóó,€736€S.W.2d€603€(Tenn.Ï1987).€€Although,€as€Pfizer€suggests,€the€Legislature€is€presumed€to€haveÏknowledge€of€its€prior€enactments,€repeals€or€alterations€of€existing€statutes€byÏimplication€is€disfavored.€€òòIdóó.€€If€the€Legislature€had€intended€the€ð ðexceptionsððÏlanguage€in€the€products€liability€statute€of€repose€to€supersede€theÏlongstanding€savings€statute,€it€could€have€explicitly€stated€its€intention.€€In€theÏabsence€of€specific€language€stating€its€intention€to€supersede€the€savingsÏstatute,€we€will€not€presume€a€repeal.€€ÌÌà àAs€we€explained€in€òòCroninóó,€this€Court€will€avoid€constructions€that€placeÏone€statute€in€conflict€with€another€and€attempt€to€arrive€at€a€reasonableÏinterpretation€that€will€effectuate€the€intention€of€the€Legislature,€as€well€asÏprovide€for€harmonious€operation€of€the€laws.€€906€S.W.2d€at€912€(citationsÏomitted).€Ì€Ìà àBecause€the€plaintiffs€initially€filed€their€products€liability€action€onÏAugust6,€1985,€within€the€statute€of€limitations,€as€well€as€within€the€period€ofÏsix€years€from€the€date€of€injury,€they€complied€with€the€letter€of€the€productsÍliability€statute€of€repose€and€fulfilled€its€legislative€purpose€„„€to€limit€the€timeÏperiod€during€which€a€manufacturer€is€subject€to€a€claim€of€potential€liability.€ÏSince€the€plaintiffððs€suit€was€ð ðcommenced€within€the€time€limited€by€a€rule€orÏstatute€of€limitation,ðð€and€was€concluded€by€an€order€of€voluntarily€dismissalÏwithout€prejudice,€its€refiling€was€within€the€express€terms€and€longstandingÏpurpose€and€spirit€of€the€savings€statute€„„€to€provide€a€diligent€plaintiff€with€anÏopportunity€to€renew€a€suit€that€is€dismissed€by€any€judgment€or€decree€thatÏdoes€not€conclude€the€right€of€action.€€Therefore,€application€of€the€savingsÏstatute€in€this€case€does€not€conflict€nor€frustrate€either€the€letter€or€purpose€ofÏthe€products€liability€statute€of€repose.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€where,€as€here,€a€products€liability€actionÏis€timely€filed€within€both€the€statute€of€limitations€and€the€statute€of€repose,€aÏplaintiff€who€voluntarily€non„suits€the€initial€action€may€rely€upon€the€savingsÏstatute€and€refile€within€one€year€of€the€non„suit,€even€if€the€non„suit€and€refilingÏoccur€beyond€the€six„year€statute€of€repose.ÌÇòòò òÓ  Óà àCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àBecause€we€conclude€that€the€savings€statute€applies€to€the€plaintiffsððÏclaims€of€medical€malpractice€and€products€liability,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€granting€the€defendantsðð€motions€for€summary€judgment€is€reversed.€ÏThe€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€withÏthis€Opinion.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€equally€between€the€defendantsÏGreer€E.€Richardson,€œM.D.,€Campbell›€Clinic,€Inc.,€and€Pfizer€Hospital€ProductsÏGroup,€Inc.,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€Ïà à________________________________Ì€à àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌÌBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€and€White,€JJ.Ì