WPC  EL(65"܃oe޴gqWOV")L]7;_f'KGm!'9ɨsq (/TluzsMR(HWLė %uf0@zF RFt*Gi^oNcKč72qdH\4H@Awٻ { x+ۭHq} eQ ZR]({_PPcux/; ŝR!^ TaaE1kh4MZ#U: % 0:^ ' U@3 ws 4w   m b 0~ 0D9 UN} N  B HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0,cAZ"Arial RegularX($USUS.,ԪxD) (9 Z(Times New Roman ;)+003|xU- -(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0  6Times New Roman Regular  d !USUS.,  _X9XXX8JXdd8    @7 7 eXX9INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @''%ATJACKSON  @/ / May24,2000Session,HeardatNashville $  @CCJEANCAROLYN_DOTSON_Ԁv.AMANDAB.BLAKE,DANBLAKE,AND  Z @THEESTATEOFELVISC.MADDOX,SR.,ANDMARTINMANOR  n @"ASSOCIATES,LTD.  2   X9Xe@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,WesternSection D  @''CircuitCourtfor_Weakley_ԀCounty 0  @t t No.2661WilliamB._Acree_,Jr.,Judge l  #eXX9# X9Xe @ ________________________________ j @ W199800710SCR11CVFiledOctober4,_2000_Ԉ B @ ________________________________   #eXX9:#CHIEFJUSTICEANDERSON,dissenting. *   X9Xe  Themajorityholdsthatajurymayallocatefaulttoa_tortfeasor_Ԁwhoassertsadefenseof N statuteofrepose,eventhoughtheplaintiffhasnocauseofactionorremedyagainstthat_tortfeasor_. : TheholdingisbaseduponCarrollv.Whitney,___S.W.3d____(Tenn.2000),ajustreleased & opinioninwhichamajorityofthisCourtcompletelyreversedthecourseofourdecisionsinthearea  ofcomparativefaultbyconcludingthattheallocationoffaulttoanimmunenonpartyisconsistent  withtheprincipleoflinkingapartysliabilitywithhisorherpercentageoffaultasestablishedin   McIntyrev._Balentine_,833S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992). !   Inmyview,boththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealscorrectlyappliedourdecisionin ^# _Ridings_Ԁv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79(Tenn.1996),andconcludedthatthejurymaynot J$  allocatefaulttoa_tortfeasor_Ԁwhohassuccessfullyassertedadefenseofstatuteofrepose.AsIwrote 6% ! indissentinCarrollv.Whitney,themajoritysabruptdeparturefrom_Ridings_isinconsistentwith "&r!" ourdecisioninMcIntyre,reflectsachangeinpolicythatunderminestheconsistencyandreliability '^"# ofthisCourtsdecisionsintheareaofcomparativefault,andviolatestheprincipleofstare_decisis_. 'J#$ Becausethemajorityhasnowtakenanothermisstepinitsnewdirection,Imustagaindissent. (6$%   *&'  _ 89XXdXd8@&ANALYSIS  0   @ (#(#ComparativeFaultUnderMcIntyre     ThemajorityassertsthatitsholdingfollowstherulerecentlyadoptedinCarrollv.Whitney, ` ___S.W.3d___(Tenn.2000).InCarroll,themajorityheldthatajurymayallocatefaultto L  individualswhohadstatutoryimmunityasstateemployeesandwerenotpartiestothelawsuit.The 8  majoritysdecisionwaspremisedon,amongotherthings,itsviewthattheallocationoffaulttoan $ t immunenonpartyisconsistentwiththegoaloflinkingapartysliabilitywithhisorherpercentage  ` offaultand,therefore,ismorefairtodefendantswhoarepartiestothelawsuit.  L    AsIobservedindissent,however,themajorityspremisewasbasedonaonesided $  perspectiveofthecomparativefaultsystemestablishedinMcIntyre:   8  Contrarytothemajoritysdepiction,McIntyredidnotachievetheresultof   completelylinkingapartysliabilitywithhisorherdegreeoffault.Wedidnot,for   example,adoptapuresystemofcomparativefaultunderwhichaplaintiffdoesnot p havetobelessatfaultthanadefendantinordertorecover.McIntyre,833S.W.2d \ at57( Wedonotagreethatapartyshouldnecessarilybeabletorecoverintorteven H thoughhemaybe80,90or95percentatfault.).Thus,aplaintiffwhoisequallyat 4 faultorevenslightlymoreatfaultthanadefendantmaynotrecover. p   Carroll,___S.W.3dat___(Anderson,C.J.,dissenting).OurdecisioninMcIntyre,therefore, H examinedmattersof policyandfairnesstobothplaintiffsanddefendants.Althoughwedidnot 4 adoptapuresystembywhichapartysliabilityiscompletelylinkedtohisorherpercentageoffault,   weabolishedtheabsolutedefenseofcontributorynegligenceaswellasthedoctrineofjointand   severalliability.Incontrast,thenewcoursechosenbythemajorityhasignoredthefairness  foundationofMcIntyrebyfocusingsolelyupontheimpactofitsdecisionasitaffectsfairnessto  defendants.    Moreover,priortoCarrollandthepresentcase,thisCourthadrelieduponitsdecisionin X  McIntyretorejecttheverysameargumentsnowembracedbythemajoritywithregardtoallocating D! fault.InRidings,wesaidthatthe rationaleofMcIntyrepostulatesthatfaultmaybeattributedonly 0"  tothosepersonsagainstwhomtheplaintiffhasacauseofactionintort.914S.W.2dat81. #l! Similarly,inSnyderv.LTGLufttechnischeGmbH,955S.W.2d252,256(Tenn.1997),wesaidthat $X"  [t]hereisnoquestionthattheCourtinRidingsconsideredthefairnessargumentsadvancedhere $D # bythedefendantsandmadeapolicydecisiontoleaveimmune[nonparties]outoftheassessment %0!$ offault. &"%   IthereforedisagreewiththeCourtsoverrulingtheapplicationofbothRidingsandSnyder (#' inallcasesexceptworkerscompensationcases.Indeed,itbearsnotingthatthemajoritys )$( justificationregardingtheuniqueeffectofsubrogationinworkerscompensationcasesisnot |*%) discussedineitherRidingsorSnyder.Thus,asIwroteinmydissentingopinioninCarroll: h+&* Ї8  [O]urcomparativefaultdecisionsbeginningwithMcIntyrehavebeenguidedby  policyandfairnessconcerns.Ascanbeseen,Ridingswasexpresslybasedupon  McIntyre.NothinginMcIntyreorRidingshaschanged!theprincipleand  procedureremainsthesame.OnlytheCourthaschanged,amajorityofwhichhas t decidedtoadoptadifferentpolicybasedonitsviewthatRidingsisnowinconsistent ` withMcIntyreandunfairtodefendantsbecauseitdoesnotfullylinkadefendants L  liabilitywithitsdegreeoffault.Icannotagreewiththis180degreechangein 8  course.$ t   Carroll,___S.W.3dat___(Anderson,C.J.dissenting).  L   @"StatuteofRepose      Astatuteofreposeisaperiodoftimedesignatedbythelegislatureforthefilingofacause   ofactionbyaplaintiffincertaintypesofcases.E.g.,Tenn.CodeAnn.283202(fouryearstatute   ofreposeapplicabletothepresentcase).Asthemajorityconcedes,theexpirationofastatuteof p reposemaybaraplaintiffsclaimevenbeforetheclaimaccrues.Croninv.Howe,906S.W.2d910, \ 913(Tenn.1995).Asuccessfulstatuteofreposedefense,therefore,barsaplaintiffscauseofaction H asamatteroflawandnullifiesboththeremedyandtheright.Id.,at912913;Wyattv.ABest 4 ProductsCo.,924S.W.2d98,102(Tenn.App.1995).  p   Inshort,atortfeasorwhosuccessfullyassertsadefenseofstatuteofreposeissimilartoone H whosuccessfullyassertsadefenseofstatutoryimmunity.Ineithercase,aplaintiffhasnocauseof 4 actionandcanassessnoportionoffaultagainstthattortfeasor.Themajority,however,hasnow   determinedthatadefendantispermittedtoarguethatfaultbeallocatedtothistortfeasor.Again,as   IwroteindissentingfromthisconclusioninCarroll:  8  [T]hemajoritysdecisionalsofailstotakeintoaccounttheimplicationsofimmunity.  Thedecisiontoextendimmunitytoapersonorentity...isgenerallyalegislative l determinationthat,intheory,benefitsthepublicasawhole.Inthecontextof X  litigation,however,itcreatesariskoflossthatisbornebyaplaintiffwhocannot D! recoverintortfromtheimmunepersonorentity.InRidings,webalancedtherisk 0"  byholdingthatadefendant,liketheplaintiff,cannotassignfaulttoanimmune #l! nonparty.Withoutanyneworinterveningreason,themajorityhasnowcompletely $X" reversedcourseandhasplacedtheentireriskoflossontheplaintiff.$D #   Carroll,___S.W.3dat___(Anderson,C.J.,dissenting). &"%   AsitdidinCarroll,themajorityrationalizesthatitsconclusionwill achievethefairest (#' possibleresult.Itwouldappear,however,thatitachievesthe fairestresultpossibleonlywhen )$( viewedfromtheperspectiveofadefendant,because,underthemajoritysnewlycreatedrule,the |*%) plaintiffhasnocauseofactionandcannotrecoverfromtheimmuneorreposednonpartywhilethe h+&* defendantispermittedtoassignfaulttothetortfeasorwhohassuccessfullyassertedimmunityora  statuteofreposedefense.    IfthisCourtwishedtodrasticallychangepolicytoachievethefairestpossibleresult,two t changeswouldberequiredinmyview.Onewouldbetoeliminatetherulethatcompletelybarsthe ` plaintifffromrecoveryifheorsheis50percentormoreatfaultandtoadoptpurecomparativefault. L  TheonlyclassofpersonsunderMcIntyrewhosufferfinanciallyoutofproportiontotheirfaultis 8  theplaintiffwhois50percentormoreatfault.Secondly,whenthelegislatureextendsimmunity $ t towrongdoersintheformofabsoluteimmunityorastatuteofreposeonthetheorythatitbenefits  ` allofsociety,whyshouldtheplaintiffbeartheentireriskofloss?TheUniformComparativeFault  L  Act,section6,forexample,suggestsafairerapproachthatwoulddistributethefaultofimmuneor  8  reposednonpartiesbetweenallthepartiesatfaultincludingtheplaintiff. $    Astheseoptionsarenotapartofthemajoritysnewfairnessformula,Icontinuetofavorthe   RidingssolutionbecauseitisareasonableapproachandbecauseasIsaidinCarroll:   8  AllofthepeopleofTennessee,itscitizensandcorporations,itsbenchandbar,have p reliedontheruleslaiddowninMcIntyre,Ridings,andtheirprogeny,ashavethose \ whohavemadesubsequentlawsandhavemadechoicesinrelianceonthese H principles.Theruleshaveworkedandwillworkinpracticaltermsandtorepudiate 4 themwillcauseseriousinequityandhardship.Becauseneitherthefactsnorthe  p circumstancesnorthesurroundinglegalprincipleshavechanged,thisCourts  \ reexaminationofthiscasehasnojustificationbeyondapresentdoctrinaldecisionto H reachadifferentresultfromtheunanimousRidingsCourt.Thatisagrossly 4 inadequatebasisforoverrulingapriorcaseandisathreattotheinstitutional   consistencyoftheSupremeCourt.    Carroll,___S.W.3dat___(Anderson,C.J.,dissenting). p     @FF% CONCLUSION  X    Inmyview,themajoritysabruptdeparturefromRidingsisinconsistentwithourdecision 0"  inMcIntyre,reflectsachangeinpolicythatunderminestheconsistencyandreliabilityofthisCourts #l! decisionsintheareaofcomparativefault,andviolatestheprincipleofstaredecisis.Iwouldadhere $X" toandfollowtheruleinRidingsandaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals. $D #   Ithereforedissent. &"%    `     h     ____________________________________ )$(    `     h     E.RILEYANDERSON,CHIEFJUSTICE |*%)