WPC  ;Mo갲CE }a8S(h0.jj瘘eC6_JY-?TA-в3.?=.7k/kyG68"cTG_*Sd;+w]Y^Y_`YaYbYcdHeYfIgEitjkDlmEnopEqErӀ|_#?3|x(W(2$ !  4XX   0   ""   X?XXX @X X?   Ad FILED X?X @  July10,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular(#$  0   ""  X?XXX@XX?   Ad FILEDX?X@  June8,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd !  4kTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TklTR[A'Legal Red3'A' Legal3'Tlg=)HXdd=g  7?XXdXXd7  "(US // :!:$(  rr|rr )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  rr||r )<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  r|rr@PPDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@rr)DATNASHVILLE̛̜   <      D   FORPUBLICATION  TL     <      D   Filed: 򀀀ZJune8,1998ZZZT$T$MT$    GENERALELECTRICCOMPANY,@##/D)  UnitedStatesDistrictCourt  @##/D)  WesternDistrictofTennessee   PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT,@##/D)  EasternDivision vn @##/D)  No.1961172 \T v.@##/D) B: @##/D)  Hon.JamesD.Todd (  PROCESSCONTROLCOMPANY,@##/D)  UnitedStatesDistrictJudge  @##/D) DEFENDANT/PETITIONER.@##/D)  No.01S019707FD00148  kkFORPLAINTIFFRESPONDENT: D FORDEFENDANTPETITIONER: %" J.RandolphBibb,Jr.     D ClintonV.Butler,Jr. ' $ Nashville  <      D JerryD.Kizer,Jr. (!%    <      D DaleConder,Jr.ThomasG.Cooper <      D Jackson T*L#' Boston,Massachusetts  CT$HOLDER,J.  706_ ii@,D OPINION    Thiscasecomestousonacertifiedquestionoflaw.Theplaintiff,GeneralElectricCompany("G.E."),filedthisactionforcontributionagainstProcessControlCompany("ProcessControl").ProcessControlfiledamotiontodismissand/ormotionforsummaryjudgmentarguingthatTennesseelawdoesnotpermitarightofcontributioninthiscase.ThedistrictcourtenteredanorderrequestingthisCourttoaddressthefollowingcertifiedquestionoflaw:8 InactionsthataccrueafterthedecisioninMcIntyrev.Balentine, @8 underwhatcircumstancesisaclaimforcontributionappropriateunderTennesseeLaw?W   ! ! Weacceptedcertificationofthequestion.Weholdthatunderthefactsascertifiedanactionforcontributionmaybeviable.    BACKGROUND  "  DouglasHuskey,aWisconsinresident,wasemployedbyA.O.SmithCorporation("A.O.Smith")asanelectricalengineer.InJanuaryof1994,HuskeywascalibratingmetersonaswitchboardatA.O.Smith'sfacilityinMilan,Tennessee.Theswitchboardwasmanufacturedbytheplaintiff,G.E.AnelectricalarcphpingoccurredontheswitchboardwhileHuskeywascalibratingmetersontheswitchboard.TheelectricalarcqhqingcausedsevereburnsandotherinjuriestoHuskey.Thedefendant,ProcessControl,allegedlymadenegligentmodificationstotheswitchboardpriortoHuskey'saccident. HuskeyandhiswifefiledaproductsliabilityclaimagainstG.E.inWisconsin.Theirclaimswerepredicatedupontheoriesofnegligenceandstrict 706 liability.G.E.'scounselwasoftheopinionthatProcessControlwouldnotbesubjecttopersonaljurisdictionintheWisconsinstatecourtaction.G.E.,therefore,didnotattempttojoinProcessControlasaparty.G.E.arguedduringtrial,however,thatProcessControlmadenegligentmodificationstotheswitchboardwhichcausedHuskey'sinjuries. ThecasewasdecidedbyajuryunderWisconsinlaw.ThejuryrejectedthestrictliabilityclaimbutreturnedaverdictinfavorofHuskeyonatheoryofanegligence.Faultwasapportionedbythejuryasfollows:25percenttoHuskey,32percenttoG.E.and43percenttoA.O.Smith.ThejurywasnotaskedtoassessfaultagainstProcessControl.G.E.satisfiedtheWisconsinjudgmentbypayingtheHuskeysapproximately2.6milliondollars. G.E.subsequentlyfiledthepresentcontributionsuitagainstProcessControl,aTennesseecorporation,intheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheWesternDistrictofTennessee.G.E.seekscontributionfromProcessControlforthatportionofHuskey'sdamagesattributabletoProcessControlunderTennesseeprinciplesofcomparativefault.G.E.allegesthatHuskey'sinjurieswerecausedinsubstantialpartbyanegligentmodificationoftheswitchboardperformedbyProcessControl'semployees. ProcessControlfiledamotiontodismissandarguedthatTennesseenolongerrecognizescontributionasaviablecauseofaction.G.E.respondsthatTennesseedoespermitacontributionclaim"inanappropriatecase."G.E.arguesthatthisisan"appropriatecase"andseekstohavefaultassessedin 704 accordancewiththeprinciplessetforthinMcIntyrev.Balentine,833S.W.2d52  (Tenn.1992).    ANALYSIS    O McIntyrev.Balentine,833S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992),didnot"completely h`  abolishtheremedyofcontribution."Bervoetsv.HardeRallsPontiacOlds,Inc., H@  891S.W.2d905,907(Tenn.1994).Contributionmaystillbeviableinthefollowinglimitedcircumstances:8 1.casesinwhichpriortoMcIntyrethecauseofactionarose,the  suitwasfiledandthepartieshadmadeirrevocablelitigationdecisionsbasedonpreMcIntyrelaw,seeOwensv.Truckstopsof  America,915S.W.2d420(Tenn.1996);Bervoetsv.HardeRalls h` PontiacOlds,Inc.,891S.W.2d905(Tenn.1994);H!@ ! ! 8 2.casesinwhichjointandseveralliabilitycontinuestoapplyunderdoctrinessuchasthefamilypurposedoctrine,cases[HwhereHHH[j] ]\where\] ]^ ^j_inwhich_`^ ^`torfeasorsactinconcertorcollectivelywithoneanother,j` `jcasesinwhichthedoctrineofrespondeatsuperiorpermitsvicariousliabilityduetoanagencytyperelationship,orinthe"appropriate"productsliabilitycase,seeResolutionTrustCorp.v. h.`'* Block,924S.W.2d354(Tenn.1996);Camperv.Minor,915 H0@), S.W.2d437(Tenn.1996);ja ajOwensv.TruckstopsofAmer.,915 (2 +. S.W.2d420(Tenn.1996),ja ajor  ! !   5.2 8 3.inthe"appropriatecase"inwhich"fairnessdemands,"see   Owens,915S.W.2dat430(allowingcontributionwhen"fairness  demands");Bervoets,891S.W.2dat907(recognizingcontribution   inthe"appropriatecase").  ! ! Thethirdcircumstance,however,isnotabroad"catchall"provisionthatdefeatsthefundamentalconceptsofourcomparativefaultlaw.Thecircumstanceunderwhich"fairnessdemands"shouldbeapplicableonlywhenfailuretoallowcontributionwouldimposejb bjcancjb be ejdadjmanifeste ejinjustice. ThecasenowbeforeuswasbroughtbytheHuskeysandlitigatedinWisconsin.PursuanttoWisconsinlawineffectatthetimeoftheHuskeys'suit,contributorynegligencedidnotbaraplaintiff'srecoveryunlessaplaintiff'snegligencewasgreaterthanthatofthedefendant.Wis.Stat.895.045(1994).UnderWisconsinLaw,aplaintiff'snegligencewascomparedtoeachdefendant'snegligenceseparately,andtheprimaryliabilityofthedefendantswasjointandseveral.SeeWisconsinNaturalGasCo.v.Ford,Bacon&DavisConstr.Corp., %  291N.W.2d825(Wis.19m9mn8n0).Contributionamongdefendants,however,wasbasedoncomparativenegligenceprinciples.SeeBrandonoerv.AllstateIns.Co., (!$ 512N.W.2d753(Wis.1994). ProcessControlwasapparentlynotsubjecttopersonaljurisdictionintheHuskeys'Wisconsinsuit.TheWisconsinjuryassessedfaultagainstthedefendantspursuanttoWisconsin'slawofcomparativefault.ProcessControlwasnotapartybeforetheWisconsinjuryand,therefore,didnothavefaultassessedagainstit.WedeclinetospeculatewhetherG.E.shouldorcouldhaveremovedtheHuskeys'personalinjurysuittoaWisconsinfederalcourtandthen 704 attempttohavethecasetransferredtoafederalcourtinTennessee.Webelievethatfairnessdemandsanactionforcontributionbaseduponthefollowingfactors:(1)theHuskeys'claimwaslitigatedpursuanttoWisconsinlaw;(2)ProcessControlmayhavebeenatortfeasorcontributingtoHuskey'sinjuriesbutwasnotsubjecttopersonaljurisdictionintheHuskeys'suit;and(3)G.E.wasjointlyandseverallyliableunderWisconsinlawtotheSR RSHuskeysS'R RSforanydamagesorfaultassignedbythejurytoothertortfeasors.  @*D CONCLUSION    BasedonthelimitedfactscertifiedtothisCourt,weholdthatasuitforcontributionmaybepermissibleinthiscase.&  TheclerkwilltransmitacopyofthisopinioninaccordancewithTenn.R.Sup.Ct.,Rule23(8).Thecostsinthiscourtwillbetaxedtothedefendant.')   <      D T$T$MT$ %     <      D JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE̜ TConcurring:TUPanel:U  )"% Anderson,C.J.DrowotaandBirch,J.J.VVYYVVYYVReid,J.VWVVWX,NotParticipatingXf̛̛Reid,J.,NotParticipatingf