WPCh hkRsG!ȩB$S~)H`qxY#;GJ5g Rׅ)S]~-cLD:xi7Ol6]{LgI6hjb=@3UEOQuMd#KuǃGH2P¸.IQad6n0EL7 _zceXeRhK_SeB?lu\t%k^NxH^c%|R̄05w5 SsCAm'pM|!=aFoEΜZ#U: % 0:U@' ^ g ws 4w   m  0~ 0DF q N 0VEMbUN BKHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0,cAZ"Arial RegularX($USUS.,(9 Z(Times New Roman xD) ;)p3|xU   ($USUS.,    1     XX_m   ` Theplaintiffsactionagainsttheemployerfellundertheworkerscompensationstatutes.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   g  ($USUS.,    4    _ XX ` m  _Ridings_isthereforeinstarkcontrasttothecasescitedbythemajorityinwhichtheCourthas  departedfromstaredecisis.Forexample,inStatev.Dominy,6S.W.3d472(Tenn.1999),weoverruledarulethat t hadproventobeunworkablefortrialcourtsandunfairtoboththeStateanddefendants.InStatev.Reeves,916 8 S.W.2d909(Tenn.1996),weoverruledarulethatnolongerwasconsistentwithamendedstatutorylaw.InStatev. L Kendricks,891S.W.2d597(Tenn.1994),weoverruledadoctrinethatwasinitiatedin1848,hadanexplicitlysexist  genesis,wasunworkableandprejudicialtodefendants.InStatev.Middlebrooks,840S.W.2d317(Tenn.1992),  weoverruledapriorinterpretationoflawbasedspecificallyontheTennesseeConstitution.   ($USUS.,    3    _ XXm   ` Iwouldalsoobservethatthemajorityhaschosenthenewcoursewithoutbriefingorconsideration  ofotheralternativesforaddressingtheriskoflosscreatedbythepresenceofanimmunenonparty,suchas t distributingthefaultofanimmunenonpartybetweentheparties.(.3$ !USUS.,      ($USUS.,    2    _ XXm   ` Themajorityassertsthatitisjoiningthe vastmajorityofcomparativefaultjurisdictionswhich,  unlikeRidings, broadlypermitallocationoffaulttoallpersonsinvolvedinaninjurycausingevent.Itshouldbe t pointedout,however,thatseveralofthejurisdictionshavetakenthispositionthroughlegislativeactsandnot 8 throughthedevelopmentofcaselaw.E.g.,Ariz.Rev.Stat.122506A(1998).Moreover,Inotethatanumberof L othercases,includingallstatesinthesixthfederalcircuit,donotallocatefaulttoallthepersonsinvolved.Bradford  v.Herzig,638A.2d608(Conn.App.Ct.1994);PaynePlumbing&HeatingCo.v.BobMcKinessExcavating&  Grading,382N.W.2d156(Iowa1986);Bakerv.Webb,883S.W.2d898(Ky.Ct.App.1994);Andersonv.Harrys H  ArmySurplus,Inc.,324N.W.2d96(Mich.Ct.App.1982);Adamsv.ChildrensMercyHospital,848S.W.2d535  \ (Mo.App.1993),overruledonothergrounds,897S.W.2d(Mo.1995);Eberlyv.APControls,Inc.,572N.E.2d   633(Ohio1991);Ewenv.McLeanTruckingCo.,689P.2d1309(Or.Ct.App.1984),reversedonothergrounds,    706P.2d929(Or.1985).Thus,theprincipleinRidingsisnotanisolatedorunworkableview.- -6Times New Roman Regular d !USUS.,  _e[XX    8yXXdd8@  m[INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON  @KK November1999Session $ @ JAMESCARROLL,ETAL.v.CAROLYNWHITNEY,M.D.,ETAL .  Z XyXm@  AppealByPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,WesternSection 4  @SSCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  p @ No.68714JaniceM.Holder,Judge  \  #mXXy#@ __________________________  \  XyXm@ No.W199700246SCR11CVFiledOctober4,_2000_Ԉ 4  @ ________________________________   \ E.RILEYANDERSON,C.J.,dissenting.       Themajoritydepartsfromsettledprinciplesoflawinholdingthatajurymayallocatefault  toanimmunenonparty.Insodoing,itrefusestoapplyandoverrulestheapplicationinthiscase of  theTennesseeSupremeCourtsunanimousdecisionjustfouryearsagoin_Ridings_Ԁv.RalphM. l ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79(Tenn.1996),thatajurymaynotallocatefaulttoanimmunenonparty X becausetheimmunenonpartyowesnodutytotheplaintiffandthereforetheplaintiffhasnocause D ofactionagainsttheimmunenonparty.󀀀 0   Inmyview,theCourtofAppealscorrectlyapplied_Ridings_inconcludingthatthetrialcourt  X erredbyinstructingthejurythatitcouldassignfaulttoimmune_nonparties_.Iamalsoconvincedthat  D themajoritysfailuretoadheretothedoctrineofstare_decisis_byfailingtoapply adecisionreleased !0 onlyfouryearsagounderminesthereliabilityandconsistencyofthisCourtsdecisionsintheareaof "  comparativefault. #     Ithereforedissent. % " @& ANALYSIS  X(#%   Themajorityassertsthat_Ridings_isinconsistentwithourdecisioninMcIntyre.Idonot 0*%' agree._Ridings_isconsistentwithMcIntyreandtheprinciplethatapartysliabilityshouldbelinked +l&( toherorherdegreeoffault.Infact,_Ridings_wasbaseddirectlyonMcIntyreandisneither ,X') unworkablenorunfairtodefendants. ,D(*  -0)+  _  InMcIntyre,wepartiallyabandonedthedoctrineofcontributorynegligencewhichbarredany  recoveryfordamagesandadoptedasystemofcomparativefaultunderwhichaplaintiffmayrecover  damagesforaninjuryprovidedthathisorherownnegligenceincausingtheinjuryislessthanthe  faultofthedefendant.Insuchacase,theplaintiffsrecoveryistobereducedbythepercentageofhis t orherownnegligence.Id.at57. `   OurdecisioninMcIntyrewasafundamentalchangeinnegligencelawinTennessee.Itwas 8  basedon considerationsoffairnessandconsistency,aswellastoavoidtheinconsistentandoften $ t harshresultstoplaintiffswhosenegligencewasfarlessthanthatofadefendantordefendants.Coln  ` v.CityofSavannah,966S.W.2d34,40(Tenn.1998);seealsoAlcazarv.Hayes,982S.W.2d845  L  (Tenn.1998)(courtsmaydeterminepublicpolicyabsentaconstitutionalorstatutorydeclaration).  8    Contrarytothemajoritysdepiction,McIntyredidnotachievetheresultofcompletelylinking   apartysliabilitywithhisorherdegreeoffault.Wedidnot,forexample,adopta puresystemof   comparativefaultunderwhichaplaintiffsrecoveryiscompletelylinkedtohisorherfaultandunder   whichaplaintiffdoesnothavetobelessatfaultthanadefendantinordertorecover.Infactwe   specificallyrejectedthepuresysteminMcIntyre.833S.W.2dat57( Wedonotagreethataparty p shouldnecessarilybeabletorecoverintorteventhoughhemaybe80,90,or95percentatfault.). \ ЀThus,aplaintiffwhoisequallyatfaultorevenslightlymoreatfaultthanadefendantmaynot H recover. 4   Accordingly,inadoptingamodifiedsystemofcomparativefaultinMcIntyre,weconsidered  \ mattersofpolicyandfairnesstobothplaintiffsanddefendantsinalawsuit.TheeffectofMcIntyres H fairnessformulaallowedplaintiffstorecoverwhenpartlyatfault,yeteliminatedjointandseveral 4 liabilitysothatthedefendantwasresponsibleonlyforitsownfault.UnderMcIntyre,theplaintiff   nowassumestheriskofaninsolventdefendantandtheriskthatheorshemaynotreceivefull   compensationfordamages.    InRidings,weheldthatadefendantcouldnotassertasanaffimativedefensethatthe  plaintiffsemployer,anonparty,causedorcontributedtotheinjurieswhentheplaintiffdidnothave l acauseofactionintortagainsttheemployer.  #  1      ׀Themajoritynowcontendsthatthisholdingis X  inconsistentwiththeadoptionofa nonpartydefenseinMcIntyre.Thiscontentionwasunanimously D! rejectedinRidings: 0"  8  TherationaleofMcIntyrepostulatesthatfaultmaybeattributedonlytothosepersons $X" againstwhomtheplaintiffhasacauseofactionintort.Thedesignationnonparty $D # usedinMcIntyreisnotatermofart;itmeansnotaparty.However,itisgivena %0!$ particularmeaningbythedecisioninMcIntyre,whereintheCourtfoundthat,upon &"% adefendantsallegationthatapersonnotapartytothesuit,anonparty,causedor '#& contributedtotheplaintiffsinjuries,theplaintiff,byamendmenttothecomplaintand (#' serviceofprocess,maymakethenonpartyapartythatisanswerabletotheplaintiff )$( inactionsfordamagesaccordingtotheRulesofCivilProcedure.Consequentlyonly  anonpartyagainstwhomtheplaintiffhasacauseofactioncanbemadeaparty.Since  theplaintiffsemployercannotbemadeapartytotheplaintiffstortactionfor  personalinjuriessustainedinthecourseandscopeofhisemployment,therationale t ofMcIntyre,bothastoprincipleandprocedure,willnotpermitfaulttobeattributed ` totheplaintiffsemployer.L    Ridings,914S.W.2dat8182(emphasisadded).Accordingly,themajoritysviewthatRidingsis $ t inconsistentwithMcIntyreisunfounded.  `   Justthreeyearsago,wereaffirmedRidingsinSnyderv.LTGLuftechnisheGmbH,955  8  S.W.2d252(Tenn.1997),butclarifiedthatadefendantisnotprohibitedfromshowingevidencethat $  animmunenonpartywasthecauseinfactofaninjury.Moreover,weagainrejectedthearguments   thatRidingswasunfairtodefendantsandinconsistentwithMcIntyre:   ̀8  ThereisnoquestionthattheCourtinRidingsconsideredthefairnessarguments   advancedherebythedefendantsandmadeapolicydecisiontoleaveimmune p [nonparties]outoftheassessmentoffault.Wethusdeclinethedefendantsinvitation \ toreverseRidingsorotherwisedepartfromtheruleadoptedinthatdecision.H   955S.W.2dat256;seealsoBrownv.Walmart,12S.W.3d785(Tenn.2000)(faultmaynotbe  p assignedtoanunknowntortfeasor).Thesearenow,however,theverysameargumentsthemajority  \ acceptsforrefusingtoapplyRidings. #  2      ׀ H   Insum,ourcomparativefaultdecisionsbeginningwithMcIntyrehavebeenguidedbypolicy   andfairnessconcerns.Ascanbeseen,RidingswasexpresslybaseduponMcIntyre.Nothingin   McIntyreorRidingshaschanged!the principleandprocedureremainthesame.OnlytheCourt  haschanged,amajorityofwhichhasdecidedtoadoptadifferentpolicybasedonitsviewthat  RidingsisnowinconsistentwithMcIntyreandunfairtodefendantsbecauseitdoesnotfullylinka  defendantsliabilitywithitsdegreeoffault.Icannotagreewiththis180degreechangeincourse. l   ThemajoritysupportsitsabruptchangeofdirectionbyassertingthatRidingshasprovento D! beunworkableinallbutworkerscompensationcases andanimpedimenttoappellatereview.It 0"  arguesthatthetrialcourtsinstructionforthejurytoassignfaulttoimmunenonpartiesresultedin  a fullyinformedverdictthatcannoteffectivelybereviewed.ItalsocontendsthatunderRidings  ajurymayactoutofsympathyfortheplaintiffandassignanunduepercentageoffaulttoadefendant  becauseitispreventedfromassigningfaulttotheimmunenonparty.Theseconcernsaremisplaced t forseveralreasons. `   First,thereisnoquestionthatthetrialcourtsinstructionwaserroneousandimproperunder 8  Ridings,whichwasdecisionallawatthetimeoftrial.Evenifoneacceptsthemajoritysassertion $ t !whichIdonot!thatthe errorenabledthejurytobemore fullyinformedofthefacts,itwas  `  notinformedofthelawtobeappliedtothosefacts.Farfromrenderingtheverdictharmless,the  L  verdictisinherently,legallyflawed.Moreover,underSnyder,thejuryisnotprecludedfromhearing  8  thefactsabouttheconductofanimmunenonpartyforthepurposeofconsideringtheelementof $  causation.     Next,unlikethemajority,IamunwillingtopresumethatunderRidingsajurywilldisregard   itsinstructionsandbaseitsverdictsolelyuponsympathyfortheplaintiff.TheSupremeCourthas   asamatterofinstitutionalfaithbaseditsdecisionsonapresumptionthatjuriesarehonestand p conscientiousandwillfollowinstructionsgiventothem.E.g.,Statev.Williams,977S.W.2d101, \ 106(Tenn.1998)(juryispresumedtohavefollowedinstructions).UnderMcIntyre,ifaplaintiffis H notlessatfaultthanadefendant,theplaintiffcannotrecover.NothinginRidingschangedthis 4 fundamentalprocedure.  p   Themajoritysdecisionalsofailstotakeintoaccounttheimplicationsofimmunity.The H decisiontoextendimmunitytoapersonorentity,asinthiscasewithstateemployees,isgenerally 4 alegislativedeterminationthat,intheory,benefitsthepublicasawhole.Inthecontextoflitigation,   however,itcreatesariskoflossthatisbornebyaplaintiffwhocannotrecoverintortfromthe   immunepersonorentity.InRidings,webalancedtheriskbyholdingthatadefendant,similartothe  plaintiff,cannotassignfaulttoanimmunenonparty.Withoutanyneworinterveningreason,the  majorityhasnowcompletelyreversedcourseandhasplacedtheentireriskoflossontheplaintiff.  Asonecommentatorhaswritten,plaintiffsshouldnotbepunished forsocietyschoicetorender l certainpersonsimmunefromtortliability.Cardi,ApportioningResponsibilitytoImmune X  Nonparties:AnArgumentBasedonComparativeResponsibilityandtheProposedRestatement D! (Third)ofTorts,82IowaL.Rev.1293(1997). #  3      ׀ 0"    Finally,themajoritysdecisionviolatesthefundamentalprincipleofstaredecisis.This $X" principle,underwhichacourtshoulddepartfromitspriordecisionsonlyuponrareandexceptional $D # occasions,isdesignedtoachieveconsistencyinthelawandtopromoteconfidenceandrelianceon %0!$ theCourtsdecisions.E.g.,Barnesv.Walker,234S.W.2d648(Tenn.1950).Accordingly,under &"% staredecisis,whenasupremecourtreexaminesapriorholdingitisrequiredtoaskwhetherrelated '#& principlesoflawhavesofardevelopedthattheoldrulehasbeenleftnomorethanaremnantof  abandoneddoctrine,whetherfactshavechangedfromthosewhichfurnishedthejustificationforthe  earlierdecisionsoastorobtheoldruleofitsjustification,whethertherulehasbeensubjecttothe  kindofreliancethatwouldlendhardshipstotheconsequencesofoverrulingitandaddinequityto t thecostofrepudiation,andfinally,whethertherulehasproventobeintolerableindefyingpractical ` workability.SeePattersonv.McLeanCreditUnion,491U.S.164,173,109S.Ct.2363,2370,105 L  L.Ed.2d132(1989);UnitedStatesv.TitleIns.&TrustCo.,265U.S.472,486,44S.Ct.621,623, 8  68L.Ed.1110(1924). $ t   Whenthestaredecisisprincipleisappliedinthiscase,theanswerisclear!theRidingsrule  L  isaliveandwellandnorelatedlegalprincipleshaveinanysensedevelopedsoastorequireits  8  abandonment.Tothecontrary,ithasbeenafundamentalbuildingblockinthedevelopmentof $  comparativefaultlaw.NorhaveanyfactschangedsincetheadoptionofMcIntyreorRidingswhich   wouldrobRidingsofitsjustification. #  4      ׀AlthoughthemajoritynowlimitsRidingstoworkers   compensationcases,therewasnosuchlimitationorexplanationineitherRidingsorSnyder.   Moreover,thisCourthadpreviouslycitedtoordiscussedRidingsonseveraloccasionswithouteither   limitingtheruletoworkerscompensationcasesorindicatingthatthesolebasisfortherulewasan p employersrightofsubrogation.E.g.,Brownv.WalMartDiscountCities,12S.W.3d785(Tenn. \ 2000);Samuelsonv.McMurtry,962S.W.2d473(Tenn.1998);Georgev.Alexander,931S.W.2d H 517(Tenn.1996).Accordingly,themajoritysclaimthatitsnewdecisionisconsistentwiththe 4 doctrineofstaredecisisisunconvincing.  p Ѐ  \   AllofthepeopleofTennessee,itscitizensandcorporations,itsbenchandbar,havereliedon H theruleslaiddownbyMcIntyre,Ridings,andtheirprogeny,ashavethosewhohavemadesubsequent 4 lawsandallhavemadechoicesinrelianceontheseprinciples.Theruleshaveworkedandwillwork   inpracticaltermsandtorepudiatethemwillcauseseriousinequityandhardship.Becauseneither   thefactsnorthecircumstancesnorthesurroundinglegalprincipleshavechanged,thisCourtsre  examinationofthiscasehasnojustificationbeyondapresentdoctrinaldecisiontoreachadifferent  resultfromtheunanimousRidingsCourt.Thatisagrosslyinadequatebasisforoverrulingaprior  caseandisathreattotheinstitutionalconsistencyoftheSupremeCourt. l @  % CONCLUSION  #l!   $X"   InMcIntyre,thisCourtactedintheinterestofsoundpolicyandadoptedasystemofmodified   comparativefaultbasedonfairnesstobothplaintiffsanddefendants.Ourunanimousdecisionin  RidingswasexpresslybasedonMcIntyre.ThereisnothinginthiscasethatdemonstratesRidings  waswronglydecidedorshouldbeabandonedinallbutworkerscompensationcases.Althoughthe t majoritystatesthatthemotivationforitsnewdecisionistoachievefairnessbymorecloselylinking ` apartysliabilitywithhisorherdegreeoffault,themajoritysdiscussiondoesnotconsidera pure L  systemofcomparativefault.Instead,themajoritysfailuretoapply Ridingssimplyindicatesthatit 8  hasoptedforadifferentpolicy. ( x   Thedoctrineofstaredecisisisoneof paramountimportanceandthepoweroftheCourt  P  tooverrulepriordecisionsshouldbeusedsparingly.Barnesv.Walker,234S.W.2dat649.Because  <  Iamconvincedthatthemajoritysdecisioncreatesinconsistencyinthelawandunderminesthe (  reliabilityofthisCourtsdecisionsasaninstitution,Ibelievethisisaclassicexampleofwhen   adherencetostaredecisisisappropriate.Ithereforedissent.        m     u ____________________________________ t      m     u E.RILEYANDERSON,CHIEFJUSTICE `