WPC{ C|$ {zr9'nYcХ+H=,r0lpc{býNu@G-+KK2'kc1'A)p?$>ۺNcdҮ1 ھ91[*;Y"*-1QtwBNE/k⑉C9If{#aM |^A(F6ΞPI/kUFDb"7oW0NY`6j:v@_*§w|"m)n'+X5Ka76T`ҁxkOTy>tj8S⍋E6ȬJB ozcԷ1 ,eXvF9-/F\ԎY0.v7Lz$**;ŀ[~msquR3r0gDzMѫ3sr@a͉ 7gϮ1վ{!Ce0&>OMR)Z# %S ^ Y 0e UN w;4? zS m 0D ]UN#NqsadEb 0 B 0 D5 D- 0K AS0 0I 0D A111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AY 0F5HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0xD) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular ;)bk1& C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(uH Z6Times New Roman Regular  Rh$  %    1    _WhatwasatthetimeofRidingsapotentialsecondreductionwaseventuallyconfirmedasacertaintybyour  decisioninCastlemanv.RossEngg,Inc.,958S.W.2d720(Tenn.1997),inwhichweheldthatanemployeeneednot t bemadewholebeforeanemployercouldexerciseitsstatutoryrightofsubrogation. W Rh$  %    2    _Wepermitamanufacturertoexplainthattheemployersactionsshouldabsolvethemanufacturerofallfault.  Thedefenseistherefore allornothingsincethemanufacturerisnotpermittedtopleadthattheemployersfaultshould t beapportioned.Interestingly,thatdefenseapparentlyisunavailableintortcasesinvolvingthirdpartieswhoarenot 8  immune.WeheldinGeorgev.Alexander,931S.W.2d517(Tenn.1996),thatadefendantwhowishestointroduce L evidencethatapersonotherthanthedefendantcausedtheplaintiffsinjurymustaffirmativelypleadcomparativefault  asadefense.Seeid.at521.Simplydefendingongroundsthatthedefendantwasnotaproximatecauseoftheplaintiffs  injuriesdoesnotentitlethedefendanttoshiftblametoanonparty.Seeid. - -((2h$ !.8Bdd8     %    0   d(|3G$ !.8Bdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Bdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKXO  , deUU(n$ (  1  ) !.8Bdd8     _   B8XXdd8@ Y<BINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#BY< #Ԉ &   May2000SessionHeardatNashville L XXB #BXX#JEANCAROLYNDOTSONv.AMANDAB.BLAKE,etal.XXB  J @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,WesternSection  J CircuitCourtforWeakleyCounty  6 @@No.2661WilliamB.Acree,Jr.,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199800710SCR11CVFiledOctober4,_2000_   AV) ` dE<h` A i     (#(#K(#  #BX{#XX.BJaniceM.Holder,J.,concurring. < XXXX#BXXC#XXB  Iconcurintheresultreachedbythemajority.Iwriteseparatelytostatethebasisformy P concurrence. <   InMcIntyrev.Balentine,833S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992),weadoptedamodifiedsystemof  comparativefaultinwhichpartiescontributingtotheplaintiffsinjuriesweretobeheldliableonly  totheextentoftheirrelativepercentagesoffault.Ridingsv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79  (Tenn.1996),highlightedtheproblemsinherentintheapplicationofMcIntyretoworkerswho  sustainedemploymentrelatedinjuriesandwhofiledtortactionsagainstpersonsotherthantheir t employers.Theseworkersfoundthemselvesinauniquesituation.Theyweresubjecttoboththe ` tortsystemsdoctrineofcomparativefaultadoptedbythisCourtandtheworkerscompensation L  systemsdoctrineofnofaultrecoverycreatedbythelegislature. 8!    Astrictapplicationofbothofthesedoctrineswouldeffectadoublereductionofthe #`" plaintiffstortdamagesthatwouldnotoccurinanyotherareaofthelaw.Thefirstreduction, #L# resultingfromanapplicationofMcIntyre,woulddecreasetheplaintiffsdamagesbytheamountof $8 $ faultattributableto(andthereforeuncollectibleagainst)theemployer.Thesecondreductionwould %$!% occurwhentheemployerexerciseditsstatutoryrightofsubrogationtocollecttheworkers &"& compensationbenefitspaidtotheemployee.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.50-6-112(c)(1).  #  1       '"'   (#(   OursolutionoftheissueinRidingswastoprecludejuriesfromconsideringtheemployers   fault.Thatholdingensuresthatworkerswillnotsufferadoublereductionoftheirawards.  Precludinganymentionoftheemployerbythemanufacturer,however,couldleavethemanufacturer  withouttheabilitytoexplaineventsthatoccurredaftertheproductleftitscontrol.Insomecases, t itwouldleaveamanufacturerwithoutanydefense.InSnyderv.LTGLufttechnischeGmbH,955 ` S.W.2d252(Tenn.1997),weattemptedtocurethatinequitybyallowingajurytoconsiderthefault L  oftheemployer.Wepermittedthedefendanttoattempttorefutetheplaintiffscontentionthatthe 8  defendantsproductwasthecauseinfactofhisinjury.  #  2      ׀TheSnydersolutioncreatesitsown $ t problems,however.Wepermitjuriestohearevidenceaboutanemployersfaultbutprecludethose  ` samejuriesfromapportioningfaultbetweentheemployerandthemanufacturer.Instead,wepermit  L  thedefendanttopointtotheemployerasthe causeinfactoftheinjuryandtoarguethatthe  8  manufacturershouldbeabsolvedfromallliability.Thisisanimperfectsolutiontoathorny $  problem.     Unfortunately,therationaleusedinRidingsissobroadastoexcludefromconsiderationof   faultanypersonwhocouldnotbejoinedasaparty.See_Ridings__,914_ԀS.W.2dat81-82( The   rationaleofMcIntyrepostulatesthatfaultmaybeattributedonlytothosepersonsagainstwhomthe p plaintiffhasacauseofaction....Consequently,onlyanonpartyagainstwhomtheplaintiffhas \ acauseofactioncanbemadeaparty.).ThesolutionsrequiredbyRidingsandSnyder,however, H arenotrequiredoutsidethenonworkerscompensationcontext.Ithereforeagreethattheextension 4 oftherulesannouncedinthosecasestoother immunenonpartieswastotallyunwarranted.Inno  p othertypeofcasearewefacedwiththeclashoftwodistinctsystemsofrecovery.Innoothertype  \ ofcasedoestheplaintifffacethepotentialofadoublereductioncausedbybothuncollectibilityand H subrogation.ExtendingRidingsandSnydertocasesinvolvingother immunenonpartieswould 4 betoapplyanimperfectsolutiontoaproblemthatsimplydoesnotexist.#XXXX#     Thedissentcharacterizestheresultinthiscaseasadeparturefromourrecentlydecided  precedentandclaimsthatwehavetherebyviolatedthedoctrineofstaredecisis.SeealsoCarrollv.  Whitney,__S.W.3d__(Tenn.2000)(Anderson,C.J.,dissentingonsamegrounds).Icannotagree.  Asstatedabove,therulesinRidingsandSnyderremediedspecificproblemsarisingfromaclash l betweencomparativefaultandworkerscompensationlaw.Thoseproblemsdonotexistinthis X  _case._ D!   Wehavelongheldthatstaredecisis onlyapplieswithreferencetodecisionsdirectlyupon #l! thepointincontroversyand onlyarisesinrespectofdecisionsdirectlyuponthepointsinissue. $X" Stateexrel.Pittsv.NashvilleBaseballClub,154S.W.1151,1155(Tenn.1913)(quotingPollack $D # v.FarmersLoan&TrustCo.,157U.S.429(1895)).RidingsandSnyderdecidedissuesthatarose  inaspecificcontextnotapplicabletothiscase.Thedoctrineofstaredecisisisthereforenot  implicated,andRidingsandSnydermayproperlybelimitedtotheirrespectivefacts.SeeCarroll  v.Whitney,__S.W.3d__(Tenn.2000)(solimitingRidingsandSnyder). t   Indeed,theequallyimportantdoctrineofjudicialrestraintshouldcompelusfromdeciding L  issuesnotbeforeus.See,e.g.,Statenv.State,232S.W.2d18,20(Tenn.1950)(notingthat 8  TennesseeSupremeCourtdoesnot renderadvisoryopinionsonquestionswhichareprematureand $ t contingentandmayneverariseinthefuture).Itwouldnothavebeenappropriateineither  ` RidingsorSnyderforustoforecastourrulingsinallcasesinvolvingcomparativefaultand  L   immunenonparties.Accordingly,todaysdecisioninnowaydepartsfromtherulesannounced  8  inthosecases.XXXXԀForthesereasons,IjointhemajoritysdecisiontoreversetheCourtofAppeals.#XXXX"# $     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE p