ÿWPCú ;NäPCAó±gc{©Yð¼°ãÐ6>b©UÕ =Ö»>¾O¢ªAå$c™fÉ_•~6fùªö©G<ªË£ {Ë D`l…%æ÷@ðÒQ«’ý [u?`uNžì×Ès^ «Üü¼Œþ:O›—¶Æn|>rþJsÀâįÆlõŽ?æMûŠþuƒR+f Ðà³³åëª[MjʸðQ:÷ÂÂø´ˆµü$‡”Ïb Ø‘Už¢ê/­çlú¼«Ê¸?œ»yðÓû×½H)Œ'«½Ýßܰ Ž$5מ1°Êˆ‚Ò†0/YÁæÔ„r¤^¬‰.,u¨Cnb6ÎHV%5+÷zÝDÅÏ¥7°‚»•|d}¢(„ÏÐù€ÓÌÔ€XNFX»¼õÔà@ââ ìàò òAppeal€by€permission€from€the€Court€of€Appeals,€Western€SectionˆÐ F – Ðà@''ìàCircuit€Court€for€Weakley€CountyˆÐ 2‚  Ðà@ ìàNo.€2661,€William€B.€Acree,€Jr.,€JudgeˆÐ n  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<á` A߈Ð â2  ÐÌà@ô ô ìàNo.€W1998„00710„SC„R11„CV€„€Filed€October€4,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈРÝ- ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<´` AßÐ µ Ðó óÌThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€of€Weakley€County,€which€refused€to€permit€the€jury€in€aÐ ° Ðpersonal€injury€case€to€allocate€fault€to€tortfeasors€who€successfully€asserted€a€statute€of€reposeÐ œì Ðdefense.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€court.€€We€granted€review€to€decide€whether€faultÐ ˆØ Ðmay€be€attributed€to€tortfeasors€who€cannot€be€held€liable€because€of€a€statute€of€repose.€€AfterÐ tÄ Ðexamining€the€record,€considering€the€arguments€of€the€parties,€and€analyzing€the€applicable€law,Ð `° Ðwe€conclude€that€the€courts€below€erred€in€not€allowing€fault€to€be€assigned€to€the€tortfeasors€whoÐ Lœ Ðsuccessfully€asserted€a€statute€of€repose€to€the€claims€against€them.€€Accordingly,€for€the€reasonsÐ 8ˆ Ðexplained€hereafter,€the€lower€courts€are€reversed.€€Ð $t ÐÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11;€Judgment€of€Court€of€Appeals€Reversedó óÐ üL ÐÌòòFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Ô_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,óóÐ Ô$ Ðandòò€William€M.€Barker,€JJ.,€óójoinedòò.óó€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,€€óófiled€a€dissenting€opinionòò,€óóandòòÐ À  ÐJanice€M.€Holder,€J.,€óófiled€a€concurring€opinion.Ð ¬!ü  ÐÌMarianna€Williams€and€Anthony€Williams,€Dyersburg,€Tennessee,€for€the€Defendant„Appellant,Ð „#Ô" ÐMartin€Manor€Associates,€Ltd.Ð p$À# ÐÌDonald€E.€Parish,€Huntingdon,€Tennessee,€for€the€Plaintiff„Appellee,€Jean€Carolyn€Dotson€€Ð H&˜!% ÐÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ  )\$( ÐÌà  àOn€December€16,€1994,€the€plaintiff,€Jean€Dotson,€was€riding€as€a€passenger€in€a€car€drivenÐ ä*4&* Ðby€Elvis€Maddox.€€The€car€in€which€Dotson€was€riding€was€struck€by€a€car€driven€by€Amanda€BlakeÐ Ð+ '+ Ðand€owned€by€Dan€Blake.€€The€accident€occurred€at€the€intersection€of€Harrison€Road€and€the€Ð ¼, (, Ðdriveway€of€an€apartment€complex€owned€by€the€defendant,€Martin€Manor€Associates,€Inc.€(ð ðMartinÐ ¨-ø(-ý? ÐManorðð).€€The€Blake€vehicle€was€traveling€north€on€Harrison€Road€when€it€struck€the€Dotson€vehicleÐ ° Ðas€the€Dotson€vehicle€was€traveling€south€attempting€a€left€turn€across€the€northbound€lane€ofÐ œì ÐHarrison€Road€into€the€apartment€complex.€€The€driveway€to€the€apartment€complex€was€located€justÐ ˆØ Ðover€a€hill€which€apparently€restricted€the€sight€distance€of€those€traveling€north€on€Harrison€Road.€Ð tÄ ÐÌÌà  àThe€plaintiff,€who€suffered€severe€injuries€in€the€accident,€filed€a€negligence€suit€against€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐBlakes€and€the€Estate€of€Elvis€Maddox.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€City€of€Martin€was€later€named€as€a€defendant€afterÐ $ t Ðthe€Blakes€filed€an€answer€alleging€that€the€negligence€of€the€City€caused€or€contributed€to€theÐ  ` Ðplaintiffððs€injuries€by€maintaining€a€public€road€on€a€blind€hill€considering€the€speed€and€volume€ofÐ ü L  Ðtraffic.€€Martin€Manor,€the€entity€that€owned€the€apartment€complex,€was€also€added€as€a€defendant.€Ð è 8  ÐMartin€Manor,€in€turn,€asserted€that€its€architectural€firm,€Hnedek,€Bobo,€Gooch€and€AssociatesÐ Ô$  Ð(ð ðArchitectðð),€negligently€designed€the€driveway€on€Harrison€Road,€and€that€its€contractor,€S.Ð À  ÐWebster€Haining€&€Company€(ð ðContractorðð),€negligently€constructed€it.€€The€plaintiff€subsequentlyÐ ¬ü  Ðamended€her€complaint€to€add€the€Architect€and€Contractor€as€defendants.€However,€thoseÐ ˜è  Ðdefendants€were€later€dismissed€from€the€case€because€the€plaintiffððs€claim€against€them€was€barredÐ „Ô  Ðas€a€matter€of€law€pursuant€to€a€statute€of€repose.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„202€(imposing€a€four„Ð pÀ Ðyear€statute€of€repose€on€claims€for€deficiencies€in€the€design,€planning,€supervision,€or€constructionÐ \¬ Ðof€improvements€to€real€property).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€Martin€Manor€filed€a€motion€requesting€that€the€trial€court€allow€the€jury€toÐ  p Ðattribute€fault€to€the€Architect€and€Contractor,€who€were€no€longer€parties.€€The€trial€court€deniedÐ  \ Ðthe€motion.€€Martin€Manor€also€submitted€a€jury€verdict€form€which€included€the€attribution€of€faultÐ øH Ðto€the€Architect€and€Contractor.€€The€form€was€not€used€at€trial,€and€the€judge€refused€to€charge€theÐ ä4 Ðjury€regarding€attribution€of€fault€to€nonparties.€€The€judge€did,€however,€give€an€instruction€that€theÐ Ð  Ðactions€of€the€Architect€and€Contractor€could€be€considered€in€determining€whether€the€plaintiff€metÐ ¼  Ðher€burden€of€establishing€Martin€Manorððs€liability,€but€that€fault€could€not€be€assessed€against€theÐ ¨ø ÐArchitect€or€Contractor€because€the€claims€against€them€were€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€ofÐ ”ä Ðrepose.€€The€jury€found€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€and€assigned€51€percent€of€the€fault€to€Martin€ManorÐ €Ð Ðand€49€percent€to€the€City€of€Martin.€€Neither€driver€involved€in€the€accident€was€assessed€any€fault.€Ð l¼ ÐThe€plaintiff€was€awarded€a€judgment€of€$225,000.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAfter€filing€a€notice€of€appeal,€the€City€of€Martin€paid€its€portion€of€the€judgment€and€wasÐ 0"€  Ðdismissed€from€the€case.€€Similarly,€the€Blakes€settled€with€the€plaintiff€after€trial€and€wereÐ #l! Ðdismissed€from€the€case.€€Thus,€Martin€Manor€was€the€only€party€to€pursue€the€case€in€the€Court€ofÐ $X" ÐAppeals€and€is€the€only€defendant€before€this€Court.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€Relying€on€this€Courtððs€decisions€in€òòRidings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79€(Tenn.Ð Ì&"% Ð1996)€and€òòSnyder€v.€Ltg.€Lufttechnische€GmbHóó,€955€S.W.2d€252€(Tenn.€1997),€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âheld€that€fault€could€not€be€attributed€to€tortfeasors€who€cannot€be€held€liable€due€to€a€statute€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrepose.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€the€intermediate€court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€decision€refusing€to€allow€the€juryÐ ° Ðâ âto€assess€fault€against€the€Architect€and€Contractor.€€We€then€granted€review€to€decide€whether€a€trierÐ œì Ðof€fact€should€be€permitted€to€consider€the€fault€of€tortfeasors€who€cannot€be€held€liable€because€ofÐ ˆØ Ða€statute€of€repose.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€After€the€Court€of€Appeals€released€its€decision,€this€Court€decided€òòCarroll€v.€Whitneyóó,€___Ð L œ ÐS.W.3d€___€(Tenn.€2000).€€òòCarrollóó€was€a€medical€malpractice€case€in€which€a€defendant€physicianÐ 8 ˆ Ðsought€to€have€the€jury€assess€fault€against€physicians€who€were€immune€from€suit€because€they€wereÐ $ t Ðemployees€of€the€State.€€As€in€the€present€case,€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòCarrollóó€relied€on€òòRidingsóó€andÐ  ` ÐòòSnyderóó€and€concluded€that€the€jury€should€not€have€been€permitted€to€apportion€fault€to€the€immuneÐ ü L  Ðphysicians.€€We€reversed,€and€joined€the€majority€of€jurisdictions€that€permit€the€allocation€of€faultÐ è 8  Ðto€all€tortfeasors,€even€immune€ones,€who€cause€or€contribute€to€the€plaintiffððs€injuriesòòóó.€€Specifically,Ð Ô$  Ðwe€concluded€òòóóthat€ð ðwhen€a€defendant€raises€the€nonparty€defense€in€a€negligence€action,€a€trier€ofÐ À  Ðfact€may€allocate€fault€to€immune€nonparties.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€___.€€The€adoption€of€this€rule€in€òòCarrollóó€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðdriven€by€a€desire€to€remain€true€to€the€guiding€principle€of€comparative€fault,€which€is€to€linkÐ ˜è  Ðliability€with€fault€and€thereby€achieve€the€fairest€result€possible.€€òòId.óó€at€___.€€Nonetheless,€we€carvedÐ „Ô  Ðout€an€exception€for€those€cases€like€òòRidingsóó€and€òòSnyderóó€involving€plaintiffs€injured€on€the€job€whoÐ pÀ Ðseek€damages€from€tortfeasors€other€than€the€plaintiffððs€immune€employer.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€even€in€òòóócasesÐ \¬ Ðbrought€by€employees€against€third€parties,€fault€can€still€be€assessed€against€others€against€whomÐ H˜ Ðthe€employee€could€not€recover€ð ðfor€any€reason.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€___.׃ô×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àClearly,€the€rule€adopted€in€òòCarrollóó€controls€the€present€case€where€the€question€is€whetherÐ  \ Ðfault€may€be€assessed€against€tortfeasors€who€are€effectively€immune€from€liability€because€of€aÐ øH Ðstatute€of€repose.׃l ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€order€to€achieve€the€fairest€result€possible€by€linking€liability€with€fault,€MartinÐ ä4 ÐManor€should€have€been€permitted€to€argue€that€some€or€all€of€the€fault€should€have€been€assessedÐ ° Ðagainst€the€Architect€and€Contractor.€€Otherwise,€liability€might€be€imposed€disproportionately€toÐ œì Ðfault,€a€result€plainly€inconsistent€with€our€comparative€fault€scheme.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarrollóó€at€___.€€TreatingÐ ˆØ Ðthis€case€any€differently€from€òòCarrollóó€would€require€drawing€€difficult€and€subtle€distinctions,€if€notÐ tÄ Ðartificial€ones,€making€for€an€unworkable€standard€in€this€important€area€of€comparative€fault.€€ThisÐ `° Ðwe€decline€to€do.€€€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€trier€of€fact€should€be€allowed€to€consider€the€fault€of€aÐ $ t Ðtortfeasor€who€is€protected€from€liability€due€to€a€statute€of€repose.€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÐ  ` ÐAppeals€is€reversed€and€the€case€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÐ ü L  Ðplaintiff.Ð è 8  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à______________________________________Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,€JUSTICEà Ð à