WPC= MhvY7wLÝZP6 -8eYn2t" VIs>1Ntk( UWd] :x#<'ve^a=P:u?*ւJt5Jp_>B%uq]PH䦞Kݓ;3caŕF,mD py:ɻQIk‚LngYNCu ܮjFl,ג严ʡeI_7S8Z4Z>n!U=zʼn30t4HU^ׅGm;mc&]Tzf %^  0UN.w|4 z  m # ^ 'y 0D?N 0U 0E 0 0 0 0n 0K 0% 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0] 0( 0 0 0@u 0 0! 0Z" 0(# 0# 0$b% 0% 0J& 00' 0<7' 0s' 0>1( 0vo( 0`( 0`E) 0`) 0`* 0`e* 08* 0* 02+ 0, 0:, 0Y7- 0_- 0 - 0j. 0c0 B*1 D/2 0@2 D/3 03 064 04 0:5 0^96 0<6U66U> 7U*G7 0q7\8 AMd8d8 B88 08 D3r9 D-9 0K99 AS:p: 06; 0D; A<<<< 0N<}+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_++3|x 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.wptUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0 T Rj$      1    _ TheSupremeCourtmay,atitsdiscretion,answerquestionsoflawcertifiedtoitbytheSupremeCourtofthe  UnitedStates,aCourtofAppealsoftheUnitedStates,aDistrictCourtoftheUnitedStatesinTennessee,oraUnited t StatesBankruptcyCourtinTennessee.Thisrulemaybeinvokedwhenthecertifyingcourtdeterminesthat,ina 8 proceedingbeforeit,therearequestionsoflawofthisstatewhichwillbedeterminativeofthecauseandastowhichit L appearstothecertifyingcourtthereisnocontrollingprecedentinthedecisionsoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee.  Tenn.Sup.Ct.R.231.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7F(X7  ?Q%2A`Arial?  SP\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dE)1dxd<:zTop of For7H(X7  ?Q%2A`Arial?  SP\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7E)2dxd0KS.SampleKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(|G2j$ !.8 dd8         0   X[ZA<< c d(|3w$ !.8 dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$ !.8 dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(O$ !.8 dd8     _    8N)XXdd8@  d INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#  d #Ԉ &   October3,2001Session L XN)X  # XXN)#MOUNCEA.JACKSONv.GENERALMOTORSCORPORATIONXN)X   J @@ Rule23CertifiedQuestionofLaw  J UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuit  6 @@No.996490  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   = dd=@@TTNo.M200100433SCR23CQFiledNovember29,_2001_   AV) ` dE<h` A i     # XXN)r#XN)X = dd=PursuanttoRule23oftheRulesoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee,  #  1      ׀thisCourtaccepted d certificationofthefollowingquestionfromtheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuit: P InaproductsliabilityactionunderTennesseelaw,maytheplaintiffusethe (x  consumerexpectationtesttoprovethathisseatbelt/restraintsystemwas d unreasonablydangerousbecauseitfailedtoconformtothesafetystandardsexpected P byanordinaryconsumerunderthecircumstances? < WeconcludethattheconsumerexpectationtestasdefinedbyTenn.CodeAnn.2928102(8)is  applicabletoanyproductsliabilityclaimwheretheplaintiffintendstoshowthatamanufactureris  liableforplaintiffsinjuriesasaresultofanunreasonablydangerousproduct.   TennesseeSup.Ct.R.23CertifiedQuestionofLaw  t   FrankF.Drowota,III,CJ,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson, L  AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,JaniceM.Holder,WilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined. 8!  CharlesJ.WilliamsandJohnB.Carlson,Nashville,Tennessee,forthepetitioner,MounceA. #`" Jackson. #L# LeoBearman,Jr.,Memphis,Tennessee,LannyB.Bridgers,andW.RandallBassett,Atlanta, %$!% Georgia,fortherespondentGeneralMotorsCorporation. &"&  '"' CharlesB.Lewis,LindaJ.HamiltonMowles,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAmicusCuriae,Product  LiabilityAdvisoryCouncil.  DianneElizabethLashmit,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAmicusCuriae,TennesseeTrialLawyers t Association. ` $ # XXN)#XN)X @@OO& OPINION 8  I.FactualandProceduralBackground   `     OnAugust21,1992,plaintiffMounceA.JacksonwasdrivingeastwardonInterstate40  8  inPutnamCounty,Tennessee,inhis1992PontiacGrandPrixautomobile,manufacturedby $  defendantGeneralMotorsCorporation( GM).Theplaintifflostcontrolofthevehicleonwet   pavement,resultinginthevehicletravelingacrossthemedian,throughthewestboundlanes,   acrossaditch,andupabank.Thefrontofthevehiclecrashedintoatree,whereuponthe   plaintiffwasinjuredwhenhisjawhitthesteeringwheelofthecar.Theplaintiffwaswearinghis   seatbeltatthetimeoftheaccident,andplaintiffassertsthatthedriversseatwaspositionedasfar p awayfromthesteeringwheelastheadjustableseattrackwouldallow.Theestimatedspeedof \ thevehicleatthetimeofthecrashwas1923milesperhour.Theplaintiffreceivedmultiple H fracturestothefaceasaresultofthecrashandconsequentlydeveloped STemporomandibular 4 JointDysfunction(_TMJ_).  p   JacksoncommencedaproductsliabilityactionagainstGMonApril4,1997,inthe  UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennessee,assertingthatthePontiacs  seatbeltwasunreasonablydangerous.OnSeptember11,1998,plaintifffiledapleadingwhich v limitedhisclaimagainstGMtostrictproductsliabilitybasedontheconsumerexpectationtest b providedintheTennesseeProductsLiabilityActof1978,codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.2928 N 101to108.OnFebruary8,1999,GMfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentwhichwas : subsequentlydeniedbythedistrictcourtinamemorandumdecisiononthegrounds thataseat &v beltsystemisacommonplaceproductaboutwhichanordinaryconsumerwouldhaveboth  b knowledgeandminimumsafetyexpectationsbasedoneverydayexperience.Afterreviewing  N thedefendantsmotionforreconsideration,thedistrictcourtissuedasecondmemorandum !: decisiongrantingthedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentbaseduponafindingthatthe "&  ordinaryconsumerhadnobasisuponwhichtoformanexpectationofthesafetyprovidedbyseat #! beltsinsimilarautomobileaccidents. $"   Jacksonappealed,andtheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuitcertified ,'|"$ thefollowingquestionoflawtothisCourt: (h#% 0  InaproductsliabilityactionunderTennesseelaw,maytheplaintiffusethe *%'  consumerexpectationtesttoprovethathisseatbelt/restraintsystemwas +&( unreasonablydangerousbecauseitfailedtoconformtothesafetystandards  expectedbyanordinaryconsumerunderthecircumstances?   Weacceptedcertificationofthisquestion,and,forthefollowingreasons,concludethatthe j consumerexpectationtestmaybeemployedinanyproductsliabilityactionunderTennesseelaw  V whereupontheplaintiffseekstorecoveronthebasisthattheproductisunreasonablydangerous.  B    `     h    II.Analysis  p    Toanswerthiscertifiedquestionoflaw,wemustconstruetheTennesseeProducts >  LiabilityActof1978.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.2928101to108.Section2918105ofthe *  statuteprovides:   0  (a)Amanufacturerorsellerofaproductshallnotbeliableforanyinjurytoapersonor D  propertycausedbytheproductunlesstheproductisdeterminedtobeinadefective 0 conditionorunreasonablydangerousatthetimeitleftthecontrolofthemanufactureror l seller.X(#(#   *** G   0  (d)Aproductisnotunreasonablydangerousbecauseofafailuretoadequatelywarnofa  dangerorhazardthatisapparenttotheordinaryuser.r(#(#  Unreasonablydangerousisdefinedinsection2928102(8)as @ 0  dangeroustoanextentbeyondthatwhichwouldbecontemplatedbytheordinary n consumerwhopurchasesit,withtheordinaryknowledgecommontothe Z communityastoitscharacteristics,orthattheproductbecauseofitsdangerous F  conditionwouldnotbeputonthemarketbyareasonablyprudentmanufactureror 2! seller,assumingthatthemanufacturerorsellerknewofitsdangerouscondition."n   *!  WepreviouslyconsideredthisstatuteandtheconsumerexpectationtestinRayexrel. $ Holmanv.BICCorp.,925S.W.2d527(Tenn.1996).InBIC,thisCourt,answeringaRule23 %  certifiedquestionoflawfromtheSixthCircuit,examinedtheTennesseeProductsLiabilityAct t&! of1978todeterminewhether,inadditiontotheconsumerexpectationtest,section2928102(8) `'"  providedfora riskutilitytest.Weheldthatthestatuteprovidedfortwotests:theconsumer L(#! expectationtestandtheprudentmanufacturertest(whichinvolvesriskutilitybalancing).The 8)$" plaintiffinBICassertedthatadisposablecigarettelighterwasunreasonablydangerousonthe $*t%# basisoftheprudentmanufacturertest.Inresolvingthisissue,theCourtexaminedbothtests +`&$ underthedefinitionofunreasonablydangerous,andconcludedthat [o]urstatutedoesnotlimit +L'% theapplicationofeithertesttoonlycertaintypesofactions.Nonetheless,theconsumer  expectationtestwillbeinapplicable,bydefinition,tocertainproductsaboutwhichanordinary  consumercanhavenoexpectation.925S.W.2dat533.    Thedefendantcontendsthatseatbeltsarecomplexproductsaboutwhichtheordinary  V consumercannotpossiblyformulateexpectationsregardingtheirsafetyandperformancein  B automobilecrashes.DefendantsuggeststhatTennesseesprudentmanufacturertestisthe  . appropriatetesttobeappliedwhentheproductatissueiscomplexbeyondtheknowledgeofthe   ordinaryconsumer.Assupportforthisargument,thedefendantpointstootherlanguageinBIC   statingthattheconsumerexpectationtestisillsuitedforapplicationtocomplexproducts:    Forexample,ordinaryconsumerswouldhaveabasisforexpectationsaboutthe  p  safetyofacanopenerorcoffeepot,but,perhaps,notaboutthesafetyofafuel  \  injectionengineoranairbag....Whilethestatutedoesnotlimitapplicabilityof H  thetests,theprudentmanufacturertestwilloftenbetheonlyappropriatemeans 4 forestablishingtheunreasonabledangerousnessofacomplexproductabout   whichanordinaryconsumerhasnoreasonableexpectation.   |+n+925S.W.2dat531. :   Thecardinalruleofstatutoryconstructionistofollowtheplainmeaningofthestatute  wherethelanguageisclearandunambiguousonitsface. Legislativeintentorpurposeistobe  ascertainedprimarilyfromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthelanguageused,withoutforced  orsubtleconstructionthatwouldlimitorextendthemeaningofthelanguage.HamblenCounty | Educ.Assnv.HamblenCountyBd.ofEduc.,892S.W.2d428,431(Tenn.Ct.App.1994)(citing h NatlGasDist.,Inc.v.State,804S.W.2d66,67(Tenn._1991)).@  _@0  ݀Section2928102(8)of T TennesseeCodeAnnotatedissilentastoanylimitationontheapplicationoftheconsumer @ expectationtestinproductsliabilitycases.Absentcontraryindicationinthestatute,weread , | Tennesseeproductsliabilitylawtopermitapplicationoftheconsumerexpectationtestinall !h productsliabilitycasesinwhichapartyintendstoestablishthataproductisunreasonably "T dangerous.Itdoesnotfollowthat,becausetheconsumerexpectationtestmaybeappliedinall "@ suchproductliabilitycases,themanufacturerwillbesubjecttoabsoluteliability.Whethera #, plaintiffissuccessfulonaproductsliabilityclaimundertheconsumerexpectationtestwill $  dependonwhetherthetrieroffactagreesthattheplaintiffsexpectationofproductperformance %!! constitutedthereasonableexpectationoftheordinaryconsumerhavingordinaryknowledgeof &!" theproductscharacteristics. '"#   Weareunwillingtoacceptthedefendantsargumentthatordinaryconsumerscannot  *Z%% formexpectationsaboutthesafetyandperformanceofseatbelts.ThelanguageinBICupon *F&& whichthedefendantreliesmerelyexplainsthatitmaybedifficultforaplaintifftoestablishthat +2'' theproductis dangeroustoanextentbeyondthatwhichwouldbecontemplatedbytheordinary  consumerwhopurchasesit,withtheordinaryknowledgecommontothecommunityastoits  characteristics,ifthecommunityhasnoordinaryknowledgeabouttheproductscharacteristics.  SeeTenn.CodeAnn.2928102(8).OurintentinBICwasnottolimittheapplicationofeither t test,buttoholdthat,inordertobesuccessfulundertheconsumerexpectationtest,theplaintiff ` mustpresentevidencethattheordinaryconsumerhasanexpectationregardingthesafetyofthe L  product. Whatisdeterminativeiswhatanordinarypurchaserwouldhaveexpected.925 8  S.W.2dat531.TheopinioninBICclearlystatesthateithertheconsumerexpectationtestorthe $ t prudentmanufacturertest,orboth,maybeappliedinallcaseswheretheproductisallegedtobe  ` unreasonablydangerous.    L    OurconclusioninthisregardissupportedbythecaseofGeneralMotorsv.Farnsworth, z  965P.2d1209(Alaska1998),citedbyplaintifftosupporthiscontentionthattheconsumer f  expectationtestmaybeappliedtoaproductsliabilitycaseinvolvingaseatbelt.Theplaintiffin R  Farnsworthwasapassengerinanautomobileaccident,andwasseverelyinjuredwhenshe >   submarinedbelowthelapbeltoftheseatbeltrestrainingsystem.Thecourtheldthat [w]hen *z aseatbeltdesignedtobeaninstrumentofprotection,becomesaninstrumentoflifethreatening f injury,aconsumerisjustifiedinconcludingthatitdidnotperformassafelyaspromised.Aseat R beltisafamiliarproductwhosebasicfunctioniswellunderstoodbythegeneralpopulation.965 > P.2dat1221.Insupportofitsadoptionoftheconsumerexpectationtest,theFarnsworthcourt * statedthattheconsumerexpectationtest incorporatesnotionsoftheimpliedwarrantyoffitness  forreasonableuse,aprimaryconceptintheevolutionofstrictproductsliability.Id.(quotation  marksandcitationomitted).   h     OurconclusionisalsosupportedbySoulev.GeneralMotorsCorp.,882P.2d298(Cal. l 1994),relieduponbybothpartiesinthiscase.InSoule,theSupremeCourtofCaliforniaheld X thatthetrialcourtimproperlygavethejuryaninstructionontheconsumerexpectationtestina D productliabilitycaseinvolvingtechnicalanalysisofanautomobilecollision.Insoholding,the 0 Soulecourtheld:  [A]complexproduct,evenwhenitisbeingusedasintended,mayoftencause J" injuryinawaythatdoesnotengageitsordinaryconsumersreasonableminimum 6# assumptionsaboutsafeperformance.Forexample,theordinaryconsumerofan "$r  automobilesimplyhas noideahowitshouldperforminallforeseeable %^ ! situations,orhowsafeitshouldbemadeagainstallforeseeablehazards. %J!" nC`C882P.2dat308.TheSoulecourtrejectedGMsargument,however,thattheconsumer x(#$ expectationstestwasnecessarilyunworkablewhen crashworthiness,acomplexproduct,or d)$%  technicalquestionsofcausationareatissue,stating: P*%& Wefullyunderstandthedangersofimproperuseoftheconsumerexpectations   test.However,wecannotacceptGMsinsinuationthatordinaryconsumerslack  anylegitimateexpectationsabouttheminimumsafetyoftheproductstheyuse.In  particularcircumstances,aproductsdesignmayperformsounsafelythatthe t defectisapparenttothecommonreason,experience,andunderstandingofits ` ordinaryconsumers.Insuchcases,alayjuryiscompetenttomakethat L  determination. 8  FFId.at30910.     Theabilitytogoforwardonaclaimthataproductisunreasonablydangerousbasedon 4  theconsumerexpectationtestrequiresthattheplaintiffprovidesufficientevidencetocreatea  p  questionoffactthattheproductwas dangeroustoanextentbeyondthatwhichwouldbe  \  contemplatedbytheordinaryconsumerwhopurchasesit,withtheordinaryknowledgecommon H  tothecommunityastoitscharacteristics.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.2928102(8).Oncethis 4 questionoffactisestablished,however, [t]hegeneralruleinTennesseeisthattheissueof   whetheraproductisdefectiveorunreasonablydangerousisoneforthejury,Curtisv.   UniversalMatchCorp.,Inc.,778F.Supp.1421,1427(E.D.Tenn.1991).Undertheconsumer  expectationtest, aplaintiffisrequiredtoproduceevidenceoftheobjectiveconditionsofthe  productastowhichthejuryistoemployitsownsenseofwhethertheproductmeetsordinary  expectationsastoitssafetyunderthecircumstancespresentedbytheevidence.Arnoldv.Dow l ChemicalCo.,110Cal.Rptr.2d722,737(Cal.Ct.App.2001). X   Theissueofwhethertheconsumerexpectationtestappliestoseatbeltswasaddressedin & Cunninghamv.MitsubishiMotorsCorp.,No.C388582,1993WL1367436,at*1(S.D.Ohio  June16,1993).InCunningham,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictof  Ohio,WesternDivision,heldthattheconsumerexpectationtestwasapplicableinawrongful  death/productsliabilityactionwheretheseatbeltwasdeterminedtohavekilledthedriverina  twentytothirtymilesperhourautomobilecrash.Initsdecision,theCunninghamcourtheld: r  [_S]eat_Ԁbeltsgenerallyarefamiliarproductsforwhichconsumersexpectationsof "@ safetyhavehadanopportunitytodevelop,andthefunctionwhichtheywere #, designedtoperformiswellknown.Inrecentyears,consumershavebeen $  bombardedwithinformationregardingtheimportanceofwearingseatbelts %!! becauseoftheprotectionwhichtheyprovide. &!"   *** '/##   [T]hisCourtissimplynotwillingto...preclud[e]theuseoftheconsumer )n$$ expectationtestinasituationinvolvingafamiliarconsumerproductwhichis  *Z%% technicallycomplexorusesanewprocesstoaccomplishafamiliarfunction. *F&& Manyfamiliarconsumerproductsinvolvecomplextechnology.Inaddition, +2'' manufacturersareconstantlyalteringthemethodsinwhichproductsperform  familiarfunctions.Thus,toconcludethattheconsumerexpectationtestcannotbe  usedbecauseaproductistechnologicallycomplexorbecauseanewprocessis  usedtoachieveafamiliarresultwouldbetosignificantlyreducetheuseofthat t test....Becauseoftheirlongusageandconsumerfamiliaritywiththemeasureof ` safetywhichseatbeltsprovide,consumerexpectationsdoprovideuseful L  guidance. 8  RQId.at*34.TheabovestatementintheCunninghamdecisionissignificantbecauseitrecognizes   thattheconsumerexpectationtestdoesnotdependnecessarilyonaproductscomplexityin    technologyoruse.Instead,Cunninghamrecognizesthatsuccessfulapplicationoftheconsumer   expectationtestbyaplaintiffsimplyrequiresashowingthattheproductsperformancewas z  belowreasonableminimumsafetyexpectationsoftheordinaryconsumerhavingordinary, f   commonknowledgeastoitscharacteristics.Thisentailsashowingbytheplaintiffthat R  prolongeduse,knowledge,orfamiliarityoftheproductsperformancebyconsumersissufficient >  toallowconsumerstoformreasonableexpectationsoftheproductssafety.  *z    III.Conclusion   [  Inresponsetothecertifiedquestion,weconcludethattheconsumerexpectationtestis &v applicabletoanyproductsliabilitycaseinwhichapartyseekstoestablishthataproductis b unreasonablydangerousunderTennesseelaw.WeaffirmourdecisioninRayexrelHolmanv. N BICCorp.thattheconsumerexpectationtestandtheprudentmanufacturertestarenotexclusive : ofoneanotherandthereforeeitherorbothofthesetestsareapplicabletocaseswheretheproduct & isallegedtobeunreasonablydangerous.However,werecognizehere,aswedidinBIC,thatit  maybedifficultforplaintiffsincasesinvolvinghighlycomplexproductstoestablishthatthe  productisdangeroustoanextentbeyondthatwhichwouldbecontemplatedbyanordinary  consumer,eventhoughtheconsumerexpectationtestmay,technically,apply.     Havingansweredthecertifiedquestion,theClerkisdirectedtotransmitacopyofthis "T opinioninaccordancewithTennesseeSupremeCourtRule23(8).CostsinthisCourtaretaxed "@ totherespondent,GeneralMotorsCorporation. #,    ______________________________________  '""  @  @`  @  @  @h  @  @ FRANKF.DROWOTA,III,CHIEFJUSTICE# XXN) #XN)X