ÿWPC-A úÓ¡%ºqþôÎÿé%Ròx6Æ’ÈñybšÃÒÂ#]+ÿ¾¦éi´ 6®ý|¦‹èb÷ àé¤!*zìNjvðÿ¦*ê:“¿I}‘<­W›m1LЕ螂]ÌJñœÿõ8ºÏ¬®¯__º=b,ýc ¡Æ®AND³ER¬pÚ,¿ÉÀLwëdënxÇbïÜwõªòÁXžá}/v¯½>Ñ^}þÏ5Ÿþ"œ…»W]×Õ|ξŽtnó‰!y¢»ÊÃtâ„ε#mÜè¿ÕËï%A- üZãSŽ8$ì?ž_•U.å7õXW Eލbÿ$ñ–'d4k¼žh-ªB¥#Ëï˜}x”Ì(¬ÉKÐ’ áÛ[ï`¸™¯ …?(ÿ‹á&ÜòÁðŸ²Óo~dGÓ5¥ëGd‹T¶†®Û ;_vm­)š¹&dê#:Њ‡‹Ù5KÓ)"øV°·éŽä‹kúÈÈ ]`Êñ]ôÄC޳ÿž…eÄgsMØ|£G[gs„§?æÏ‚²Ï¢Jã¯IÕÙLü=ˆç8Z” ï ŠS}«h…áâ”±Š¤“ÈåŒmõ±êÝPC>ÙW™›á™ZQ÷¬µmÎo³ŒŽ³ÿ ÆÜIëÐ]Ô´×W¬Å¢)lb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ w· U5N» 4 z Ò— i x mz ë‘ Æ|ÆBÆÆÎ 0D”NØU@Ú 0îE 0ë  0èõ 0åÝ 0â 0ߤ 0܃ 0Ù_ 0Ö8 0Ü 0Ùê 0Öà 0Ó™ 0Ðl 0Í< 0Ê  0ÇÓ 0Äš 0Û^! 0Ø9" 0Õ# 0Òæ# 0ϸ$ 0̇%bS& 0É[& 0Æ$' 0Ãê'U>­(rë(`]+.½,½,ë0ë0ë0ë0ë0ë0ë0ë0ë0ë0ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3ý3 0í444!ò4 B== 0¤0= D5Ô= D- > 0K6>6> AS>ÆÔ> 0¤š? 0D>@ A«‚@˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»·v)L (`Å$¡¡Ñ€..ÑÑ8€;uXXdæ»»d8ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularö~ì((˜¥ý ˜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|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ áÝ ƒR~$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÙ™X»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô# òXXÙ™ÔAlthough€not€strictly€relevant€for€purposes€of€this€appeal,€the€plaintiff€also€filed€suit€against€William€and€AnnÐ ° ÐMorris€for€their€alleged€negligence€in€failing€to€warn€the€plaintiff€ð ðas€to€the€unreasonably€dangerous€natureðð€of€the€ATVÐ œì Ðand€in€failing€to€ð ðprovide€any€safety€equipment€or€instruction.ðð€€These€two€defendants€are€not€involved€in€the€case€beforeÐ `° Ðthis€court,€and€any€reference€to€the€ð ðdefendantsðð€in€our€opinion€excludes€Ô_ÔdefendantsÔ_Ô€William€and€Ann€Morris.€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(uHš Z‹(Times New Roman 2G+J ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+J ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+J ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+J ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+J ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+J ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+J ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+J ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/+J ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-25J ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Óô\  `‹&Times New Roman Ð  ' tg0tg .    VÝ ƒR~$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÙ™X»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô# òXXÙ™ÔÔ_ÔAny€such€action,€though,€ð ðshall,€in€all€events,€be€brought€within€five€(5)€years€.€.€.€Ô_Ô.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð28„3„Ð ° Ð203(b). $Ý ƒR~$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÙ™X»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô# òXXÙ™ÔSeveral€commentators€have€questioned€whether€the€products€liability€crisis€was€real€or€merely€perceived.€Ð ° ÐData€and€scholarly€research€suggest€that€there€was€neither€an€insurance€crisis€nor€a€litigation€explosion.€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð œì ÐInteragency€Task€Force€of€Prod.€Liab.,€U.S.€Depððt€of€Commerce,€Final€Report€(1977);€Theodore€Eisenberg€&€James€A.Ð `° ÐHenderson,€Jr.,€òòInside€the€Quiet€Revolution€in€Products€Liabilityóó,€39€UCLA€L.€Rev.€731€(1992);€Jerry€J.€Phillips,€òòAttacksÐ $t Ðon€the€Legal€Systemð"ðFallacy€of€ððTort€Reformðð€Argumentsóó,€Trial,€Feb.€1992,€at€106.€€Irrespective€of€how€the€ð ðcrisisððÐ è8 Ðactually€came€about,€however,€it€cannot€be€disputed€that€it€provided€the€motivation€for€the€General€Assembly€to€enactÐ ¬ü Ðthe€TPLA€and€its€corresponding€statute€of€repose.€€ Ý ƒR~$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÙ™X»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô# òXXÙ™ÔÔ_ÔOf€course,€the€TPLA€also€has€a€ð ðuseful€lifeðð€provision€in€the€statute€of€repose€which€extinguishes€a€claimÐ ° Ðwithin€one€year€ð ðafter€the€expiration€of€the€anticipated€life€of€the€product.ðð€€Courts€are€to€apply€either€this€provision€orÐ œì Ðthe€ten„year€provision,€ð ðwhichever€is€the€shorter.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€29„28„103(a).€€Because€this€portion€of€the€statuteÐ `° Ðis€not€an€issue€in€this€case,€we€do€not€specifically€address€the€ð ðuseful€lifeðð€provision,€although€the€same€analysis€wouldÐ $t Ðpresumably€apply. (|I2~$¤¤Ý ƒÅ!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù™XXdìd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÙ™X»»Ô€€ Ý ƒR~$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÙ™X»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô# òXXÙ™ÔContrary€to€the€plaintiffððs€assertions,€we€did€not€unduly€extend€the€TPLA€six„year€statute€of€repose€inÐ ° ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€29„28„103(a)€with€our€decision€in€òòÔ‡ô# ò òô#ÔSharp€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Richardsonóó,€937€S.W.2d€846,€850€(Tenn.Ð œì Ð1996).€€In€òòSharpóó,€Ô#†ô# ò òô#d#Ôwe€held€that€the€statute€of€repose€did€not€bar€actions€which€were€initially€filed€during€the€repose€period,Ð `° Ðbut€were€voluntarily€dismissed€and€re„filed€pursuant€to€the€savings€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€28„1„105(a)€(1980€&Ð $t ÐSupp.€1995),€Ô_ÔafterÔ_Ô€the€statute€of€repose€had€run.€€We€held€that€even€though€the€General€Assembly€was€silent€as€to€anyÐ è8 Ðintention€for€the€TPLA€to€supersede€the€savings€statute,€ð ðapplication€of€the€savings€statute...does€not€conflict€norÐ ¬ü Ðfrustrate€either€the€letter€or€purpose€of€the€products€liability€statute€of€repose.ðð€€òòSharpóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€850.€€We€wereÐ p À Ðcareful€to€note€that€issues€of€fair€notice€and€accurate€assessment€of€liability€were€not€entitled€to€great€weight€since€theÐ 4 „ Ðplaintiff€had€to€initially€file€suit€within€the€repose€period€to€take€advantage€of€the€savings€statute.€€With€the€plaintiffððsÐ ø H Ðinitial€filing,€defendants€were€on€fair€notice€of€the€claim€and€could€make€financial€adjustments€accordingly.€€These€issuesÐ ¼   Ðare€entitled€to€greater€weight€in€the€present€case,€however,€because€the€very€nature€of€mental€incompetency€rendersÐ € Ð  Ðuncertain€both€issues€of€fair€notice€and€accurate€assessment€of€liability,€and€because€the€plaintiff€in€this€case,€unlikeÐ D ”  ÐòòRichardsonóó,€initially€filed€suit€beyond€the€ten„year€period€of€repose. d(|3î$££Ý ƒÅ!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù™XXdìd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3î$¢¢Ý ƒÅ!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù™XXdìd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒÅ!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù™XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼š¥»»»ÔÑ  Ñԇš¥Ôà@™ ™ ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ Ö& ÐÔ#†¼š¥»îî›”¶#ÔÓ  ÓMay€2000€Session€Heard€in€NashvilleÐ üL ÐÓsÓÔ‡XÙ™X»¼š¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼š¥»XXÙ™Ç#ÔÓ  ÓGAYLE€Ô_ÔPENLEYÔ_Ôòòóó€€v.€€HONDA€MOTOR€COMPANY,€Ô_ÔLTDÔ_Ô.,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XÙ™X»¼š¥Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÓ ÓÌà@ÞÞ ìàò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Appeals,€Western€SectionˆÐ ú J ÐÓ  ÓCircuit€Court€for€Chester€CountyÐ æ 6 ÐÓJÓà@¹ ¹ ìàNo.€4196€€€€€€Hon.€Whit€Ô_ÔLaFonÔ_Ô,€JudgeˆÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` A߈Ð –æ  ÐÌà@í í ìàNo.€W1998„00765„SC„R11„CVÔ#†¼š¥»XXÙ™˜#ÔÔ‡XÙ™X»¼š¥Ô€„€Filed€August€25,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР‘á  ÐÓ  ÓÓ.Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€Ð }Í  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌThe€sole€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€ten„year€statute€of€repose€codified€in€the€TennesseeÐ P  ÐProducts€Liability€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„103(a)€(1980€&€Supp.€1999),€is€tolled€during€anyÐ <Œ Ðperiod€of€a€plaintiffððs€mental€incompetence.€€Granting€the€defendantsðð€motion€for€summaryÐ (x Ðjudgment,€the€Chester€County€Circuit€Court€ruled€that€(1)€the€plaintiffððs€action€was€brought€moreÐ d Ðthan€ten€years€from€the€productððs€first€purchase€for€use€or€consumption;€and€(2)€the€ten„year€statuteÐ P Ðof€repose€was€not€tolled€by€reason€of€mental€incompetence.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€grantÐ ì< Ðof€summary€judgment,€and€the€plaintiff€was€granted€permission€to€appeal€by€this€Court.€€For€theÐ Ø( Ðreasons€given€herein,€we€likewise€affirm€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants€and€holdÐ Ä Ðthat€mental€incompetency€does€not€operate€to€toll€the€statute€of€repose€contained€within€theÐ ° ÐTennessee€Products€Liability€Act.€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€affirmed,€and€theÐ œì Ðplaintiffððs€suit€is€dismissed.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Ð `° ÐCourt€of€Appeals€is€Affirmed;€Case€Dismissedó óÔ#†¼š¥»XXÙ™Á#ÔÔ‡XÙ™X»¼š¥ÔÐ L œ ÐÓâ ÓÌòòWilliam€M.€BarkerÔ#†¼š¥»àXÙ™Ÿ #ÔÔ‡XÙ™X.¼š¥Ô,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòóó€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,€óóandÐ $"t! ÐòòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€Ô_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€and€Janice€M.€Holder,€JJ.,€óójoined.Ô#†¼š¥»XXÙ™ #ÔÔ‡XÙ™X»¼š¥ÔÐ #`" ÐÌWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔHaltomÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Memphis,€Tennessee;€Kenneth€W.€Hooks,€Birmingham,€Alabama;€and€KeithÐ è$8 $ ÐBelt,€Birmingham,€Alabama,€for€the€appellant,€Ms.€Gayle€Ô_ÔPenleyÔ_Ô.Ô#†¼š¥»XXÙ™f #ÔÔ‡XÙ™X»¼š¥ÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌR.€Dale€Bay,€Nashville,€Tennessee;€Susan€R.€High„Ô_ÔMcAuleyÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee;€and€MarshallÐ ¬'ü"' ÐT.€Cook,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Honda€Motor€Company,€Ltd.;€Honda€Research€&Ð ˜(è#( ÐDevelopment€Company,€Ltd.;€American€Honda€Motor€Company,€Inc.;€Joeððs€Cycle€Shop,€Inc.€d/b/aÐ „)Ô$) ÐJoeððs€Cycle€and€Marine.Ô#†¼š¥»XXÙ™®#ÔÔ‡XÙ™X»¼š¥ÔÐ  p*À%*ý' ÐÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼š¥»XXÙ™–#ÔÔ€XÙ™X»¼š¥ÔÐ ° ÐÓÞÓÌà  àOn€June€8,€1996,€the€plaintiff,€Gayle€Penley,€along€with€several€of€her€friends,€went€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðfarm€of€William€and€Anne€Morris€to€ride€four„wheel€all„terrain€vehicles€(ATVs).€€Because€the€groupÐ tÄ Ðdid€not€have€enough€ATVs€for€everyone€to€ride,€Anne€Morris€allowed€the€plaintiff€to€borrow€herÐ `° ÐATV,€and€the€group€left€to€ride€along€some€nearby€trails.€€While€riding€on€one€of€these€trails,€theÐ L œ Ðplaintiff€started€to€climb€a€steep€hill,€and€as€she€neared€the€top€of€the€hill,€the€ATV€suddenly€rolledÐ 8 ˆ Ðover€backwards€and€crushed€her.€€The€accident€resulted€in€extensive€injuries€to€the€plaintiffððs€backÐ $ t Ðand€chest.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€was€rushed€to€a€nearby€hospital€where€she€remained€until€her€release€on€JuneÐ è 8  Ð27,€1996.€€Upon€closer€examination,€it€was€discovered€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€a€fracture€of€the€L„1Ð Ô$  Ðvertebrae€and€fractures€of€the€fifth,€sixth,€and€seventh€ribs€on€her€right€side.€€During€herÐ À  Ðhospitalization,€the€plaintiff€was€in€extreme€pain€and€required€near€constant€narcotic€painÐ ¬ü  Ðmedication.€€As€the€plaintiff€alleged€in€her€amended€complaint,€she€ð ðwas€incapacitated€and€requiredÐ ˜è  Ðtwenty„four€hour€supervision€and€care.€€She€was€incapable€of€working,€tending€to€her€personalÐ „Ô  Ðbusiness,€or€of€taking€care€of€herself.ðð€€The€plaintiff€also€stated€in€an€affidavit€that€she€ð ðwas€oftenÐ pÀ Ðunaware€of€what€was€going€on€around€[her],€and€was€periodically€disoriented€and€dizzy.ððÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àOn€June€6,€1997,€the€plaintiff€filed€suit€under€the€Tennessee€Products€Liability€Act€(TPLA)Ð 4„ Ðin€the€Circuit€Court€for€Chester€County€alleging€that€the€ATV€involved€in€the€plaintiffððs€injuries€wasÐ  p Ðdesigned,€manufactured,€tested,€marketed,€and€sold€in€a€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerousÐ  \ Ðcondition.€€The€claims€against€defendants€Honda€Motor€Company,€Ltd.,€American€Honda€MotorÐ øH ÐCompany,€Inc.,€Honda€Research€and€Development€Company,€Ltd.,€and€Joeððs€Cycle€Shop,€Inc.,Ð ä4 Ðalleged€strict€liability,€negligence,€failure€to€warn,€breach€of€express€warranties,€and€breach€of€theÐ Ð  Ðimplied€warranties€of€merchantability€and€fitness€for€a€particular€purpose.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àOn€July€21,€1997,€the€defendants€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€arguing€that€theÐ ”ä Ðplaintiffððs€claims€were€barred€by€the€ten„year€statute€of€repose€as€set€forth€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ €Ð ÐAnnotated€section€29„28„103(a).€€The€defendants€alleged€that€the€ATV€involved€in€the€plaintiffððsÐ l¼ Ðaccident€was€first€purchased€for€use€or€consumption€by€Ann€Morris€on€May€23,€1987,€ten€years€andÐ X ¨ Ðthirteen€days€before€the€filing€of€the€plaintiffððs€suit.€€In€response,€the€plaintiff€moved€to€amend€herÐ D!” Ðcomplaint€to€allege€that€the€accident€rendered€her€ð ðmentally€and€physically€incapacitated.ðð€€TheÐ 0"€  Ðplaintiff€then€argued€that€the€Ô‡XÙ™XXXÙ™Ôoperation€of€the€TPLA€statute€of€repose€was€tolled€by€the€legalÐ #l! Ðdisability€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€28„1„106€(1980€&€Supp.€1999),€Ô#†XÙ™XXXÙ™z#Ôduring€the€twenty€days€thatÐ $X" Ðshe€remained€mentally€incapacitated€in€the€hospital.Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àAlthough€the€circuit€court€allowed€the€plaintiff€to€amend€her€complaint€to€allege€mental€andÐ ° Ðâ âphysical€incapacity€during€her€period€of€hospitalization,€it€nevertheless€granted€the€defendantsððÐ œì Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€plaintiff€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€which€affirmed€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants€and€held€that€the€TPLA€statute€of€reposeÐ tÄ Ðwas€not€tolled€by€a€plaintiffððs€physical€or€mental€incompetence.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€also€held€thatÐ `° Ðthe€absence€of€a€tolling€provision€for€persons€of€unsound€mind€did€not€render€the€TPLA€statute€ofÐ L œ Ðrepose€unconstitutional€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€then€requested,€and€we€granted,€permission€to€appeal€on€the€following€issue:Ð  ` Ðwhether€the€TPLA€ten„year€statute€of€repose€is€tolled€when€the€plaintiff€suffers€temporary€mentalÐ ü L  Ðincompetency.€€For€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€hold€that€the€TPLA€statute€of€repose€is€not€tolledÐ è 8  Ðby€the€plaintiffððs€temporary€mental€incompetency,€and€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summaryÐ Ô$  Ðjudgment€to€the€defendants.€Ð À  ÐÌÓ  Óò òSTANDARD€OF€APPELLATE€REVIEWó óÐ ˜è  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àÔ‡XÙ™XXXÙ™ÔSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€when€the€moving€party€demonstrates€that€there€areÐ pÀ Ðno€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€he€or€she€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòSeeóóÐ \¬ ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03;€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993).€€Since€our€inquiry€involvesÐ H˜ Ðpurely€a€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctness€attaches€to€the€lower€courtððs€judgment,€andÐ 4„ Ðour€task€is€confined€to€reviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€of€TennesseeÐ  p ÐRule€of€Civil€Procedure€56€have€been€met.€€òòSeeóó€òòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Assocs.€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83,€88Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€2000);€òòSeavers€v.€Methodist€Med.€Ctr.óó,€9€S.W.3d€86,€90„91€(Tenn.€1999).€€Courts€shouldÐ øH Ðð ðgrant€a€summary€judgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€factsÐ ä4 Ðpermit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.ðð€€òòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBainÐ Ð  Ðv.€Wellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997).Ô#†XÙ™XXXÙ™—%#ÔÔ‡XÙ™XXXÙ™ÔÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€summary€judgment€requirements€have€beenÐ ”ä Ðmet,€we€must€view€all€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„moving€party.€€òòEyring€v.Ð €Ð ÐFort€Sanders€Parkwest€Med.€Ctr.óó,€991€S.W.2d€230,€236€(Tenn.€1999);€òòHallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210-11.€Ð l¼ ÐAccordingly,€Ô#†XÙ™XXXÙ™Y*#ÔÔ‡XÙ™XXXÙ™Ôfor€purposes€of€this€review,€we€will€presume€that€the€plaintiff€was€in€fact€of€ð ðunsoundÐ X ¨ Ðmindðð€within€the€definition€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€28„1„106€for€the€twenty€days€sheÐ D!” Ðwas€hospitalized€following€her€accident.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌÔ#†XÙ™XXXÙ™*,#ÔÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ $X" ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€issue€of€whether€the€TPLA€ten„year€statute€of€repose€is€tolled€for€mental€incompetencyÐ à%0!$ Ðappears€to€be€one€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.€€Importantly,€the€parties€do€not€dispute€that€theÐ Ì&"% ÐTPLA,€including€the€ten„year€statute€of€repose,€governs€all€of€the€plaintiffððs€claims€or€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðplaintiff€brought€suit€more€than€ten€years€after€the€product€in€question€was€ð ðfirst€purchased€for€useÐ ¤(ô#' Ðor€consumption.ðð€€Rather,€the€plaintiffððs€contention€is€that€the€ten„year€statute€of€repose€in€sectionÐ )à$( Ð29„28„103(a)€is€tolled€during€any€period€in€which€the€plaintiff€is€mentally€incapacitated.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÔ‡2XÙ™XXXÙ™ÔÐ h+¸&* Ðà  à€The€current€text€of€the€TPLA€statute€of€repose€reads€in€part€as€follows:Ô#†XÙ™XX2XÙ™«0#ÔÐ ° ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌò ò29„28„103.€€Limitation€of€actions€ð"ð€Exceptions.€ð"ð€ó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌ(a)à ` àAny€action€against€a€manufacturer€or€seller€of€a€product€for€injury€to€personÐ `° Ðor€property€caused€by€its€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous€condition€must€beÐ L œ Ðbrought€within€the€period€fixed€by€[sections]€28-3-104,€28-3-105,€28-3-202€andÐ 8 ˆ Ð47-2-725,€but€notwithstanding€any€exceptions€to€these€provisions€it€must€be€broughtÐ $ t Ðwithin€six€(6)€years€of€the€date€of€injury,€òòin€any€event,€the€action€must€be€broughtÐ  ` Ðwithin€ten€(10)€years€from€the€date€on€which€the€product€was€first€purchased€for€useÐ ü L  Ðor€consumption,€óóor€within€one€(1)€year€after€the€expiration€of€the€anticipated€life€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€product,€whichever€is€the€shorter,€except€in€the€case€of€injury€to€minors€whoseÐ Ô$  Ðaction€must€be€brought€within€a€period€of€one€(1)€year€after€attaining€the€age€ofÐ À  Ðmajority,€whichever€occurs€sooner.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌ(b)à ` àThe€foregoing€limitation€of€actions€shall€not€apply€to€any€action€resultingÐ „Ô  Ðfrom€exposure€to€asbestos€or€to€the€human€implantation€of€silicone€gel€breastÐ pÀ Ðimplants.Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Ó(c)(1)à ` àAny€action€against€a€manufacturer€or€seller€for€injury€to€a€person€caused€byÐ 4„ Ða€silicone€gel€breast€implant€must€be€brought€within€a€period€not€to€exceedÐ  p Ðtwenty-five€(25)€years€from€the€date€such€product€was€implanted;€€provided,€that€suchÐ  \ Ðaction€must€be€brought€within€four€(4)€years€from€the€date€the€plaintiff€knew€orÐ øH Ðshould€have€known€of€the€injury.Ð ä4 ÐÓÂ6ÓÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29-28-103(a)„(c)(1)€(1980€&€Supp.€1999)€(emphasis€added).Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àStatutes€of€repose€operate€differently€than€statutes€of€limitation,€primarily€because€statutesÐ ”ä Ðof€repose€Ô‡XÙ™XXXÙ™Ôtypically€begin€to€run€with€the€happening€of€some€event€unrelated€to€the€traditional€accrualÐ €Ð Ðof€the€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action.€€Ô#†XÙ™XXXÙ™Ë9#ÔòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòCronin€v.€Howeóó,€906€S.W.2d€910,€914€(Tenn.€1995);Ð l¼ ÐòòWyatt€v.€A-Best€Prods.€Co.óó,€924€S.W.2d€98,€102€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Because€a€plaintiffððs€causeÐ X ¨ Ðof€action€can€be€eliminated€by€a€statute€of€repose€even€before€it€accrues,€òòWatts€v.€Putnam€Countyóó,Ð D!” Ð525€S.W.2d€488,€491€(Tenn.€1975),€statutes€of€repose€have€been€said€to€ð ðextinguish€both€the€rightÐ 0"€  Ðand€the€remedy,ðð€€òòCroninóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€913.€€The€courts€of€this€state€have€construed€statutes€ofÐ #l! Ðrepose€as€an€absolute€time€limit€within€which€actions€must€be€brought,€òòid.óó€at€913,€and€this€Court€hasÐ $X" Ðcharacterized€the€statute€of€repose€as€ð ðan€outer€limit€or€ceiling€superimposed€upon€the€existingÐ ô$D # Ðstatute€[of€limitations].ðð€€òòHarrison€v.€Schraderóó,€569€S.W.2d€822,€826€(Tenn.€1978).€€As€one€court€hasÐ à%0!$ Ðstated€with€regard€to€the€application€of€statutes€of€repose,€ð ðWhere€the€injury€occurs€within€theÐ Ì&"% Ð[repose]€period,€and€a€claimant€commences€his€or€her€action€after€the€[repose]€period€has€passed,€anÐ ¸'#& Ðaction€accrues€but€is€barred.€Where€the€injury€occurs€outside€the€[repose]€period,€no€substantiveÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcause€of€action€ever€accrues,€and€a€claimantððs€actions€are€likewise€barred.ðð€€òòGillam€v.€Firestone€TireÐ )à$( Ð&€Rubber€Co.óó,€489€N.W.2d€289,€291€(Neb.€1992)€(citations€omitted).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àDespite€the€absolute€and€unyielding€nature€of€statutes€of€repose,€however,€the€GeneralÐ ° ÐAssembly€has€allowed€plaintiffs,€in€some€cases,€to€commence€a€lawsuit€even€after€the€general€statuteÐ œì Ðof€repose€has€run.€€For€example,€the€General€Assembly€has€permitted€allegations€of€fraudulentÐ ˆØ Ðconcealment€to€toll€the€otherwise€applicable€three„year€statute€of€repose€in€medical€malpracticeÐ tÄ Ðcases.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€29„26„116€(1980€&€Supp.€1999).€€Likewise,€the€four„year€statute€ofÐ `° Ðrepose€for€actions€relating€to€defective€improvement€of€real€estate€is€tolled€by€statute€if€the€injuryÐ L œ Ðoccurs€within€the€fourth€year.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€28„3„203(a)€(1980€&€Supp.€1999).׃4×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€appearsÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€when€the€General€Assembly€has€desired€that€exceptions€apply€to€a€statute€of€repose,€however,Ð $ t Ðthe€exception€is€either€found€with€the€language€of€the€statute€itself,€or€in€another€part€of€the€codeÐ  ` Ðspecifically€referencing€the€particular€statute€of€repose.€Ð ü L  ÐÌ€€à  àIn€considering€whether€the€TPLA€statute€of€repose€is€tolled€for€mental€incompetency,€weÐ Ô$  Ðmust€determine€and€give€effect€to€the€intent€of€the€legislature.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòJordan€v.€Baptist€ThreeÐ À  ÐRivers€Hosp.óó,€984€S.W.2d€593,€599€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€so€doing,€we€are€to€examine€the€ð ðnatural€andÐ ¬ü  Ðordinary€meaning€of€the€language€usedðð€in€the€TPLA,€ð ðwithout€a€forced€or€subtle€construction€thatÐ ˜è  Ðwould€limit€or€extend€the€meaning€of€the€language.ðð€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòTuggle€v.€Allright€Parking€Sys.,€Inc.óó,Ð „Ô  Ð922€S.W.2d€105,€107€(Tenn.€1996).€€Where€the€language€of€the€statute€ð ðis€clear€and€unambiguous,Ð pÀ Ðthen€this€Court€will€give€effect€to€the€statute€according€to€the€plain€meaning€of€its€terms.ðð€€òòLavin€v.Ð \¬ ÐJordonóó,€16€S.W.3d€362,€365€(Tenn.€2000);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGragg€v.€Graggóó,€12€S.W.3d€412,€415€(Tenn.Ð H˜ Ð2000).€Ô‡2XÙ™XXXÙ™ÔÐ 4„ ÐÔ#†XÙ™XX2XÙ™®I#ÔÌà  àThe€TPLA€ten„year€limiting€period€states€that€ð ðòòin€any€eventóó,€an€action€òòmust€óóbe€brought€withinÐ  \ Ðten€(10)€years€from€the€date€on€which€the€product€was€first€purchased€for€use€or€consumption.ðð׃7@×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РøH ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€29„28„103(a)€(emphasis€added).€€When€read€in€context,€the€language€ð ðin€anyÐ ä4 Ðeventðð€carries€precisely€the€same€connotation€as€ð ðnotwithstanding€other€exceptionsðð€or€ð ðwithoutÐ Ð  Ðregard€to€any€other€limitations,ðð€and€the€General€Assemblyððs€use€of€this€language€compels€theÐ ¼  Ðconclusion€that€it€intended€for€the€ten„year€repose€period€to€be€an€absolute€bar€beyond€which€noÐ ¨ø Ðproducts€liability€cause€of€action€could€exist.€€Because€the€language€is€clear,€this€Court€is€not€in€aÐ ”ä Ðposition€to€give€the€statute€a€construction€which€is€not€supported€by€the€language.€€Consequently,€theÐ €Ð Ðuse€of€such€broad€language€by€the€General€Assembly€weighs€very€heavily€against€finding€an€impliedÐ l¼ Ðexception€to€the€general€ten„year€repose€period€for€mental€incompetency.Ð X ¨ ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà  àSection€29„28„103(a)€also€expressly€exempts€certain€causes€of€action€from€application€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðten„year€statute€of€repose.€€For€example,€the€ten„year€statute€of€repose€does€not€strictly€apply€in€theÐ #l! Ðcase€of€minors,€who€may€still€bring€an€action€within€one€year€of€attaining€majority€even€if€the€initialÐ $X" Ðten„year€period€has€long€since€expired.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€29„28„103(a).€€Moreover,€since€theÐ ° Ðoriginal€enactment€of€the€TPLA€in€1978,€the€General€Assembly€has€carefully€carved€out€two€otherÐ œì Ðexceptions€to€the€statute€of€repose.€€In€1979,€the€legislature€exempted€asbestos€claims€from€theÐ ˆØ Ðoperation€of€the€statute€of€repose,€1979€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€ch.€162,€ðð€1,€and€in€1993,€the€GeneralÐ tÄ ÐAssembly€extended€the€ten„year€period€to€twenty„five€years€for€claims€arising€from€injury€caused€byÐ `° Ðsilicone€gel€breast€implants,€1993€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€ch.€457.€€Any€reference€to€persons€of€unsoundÐ L œ Ðmind,€however,€is€conspicuously€absent.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIt€is€a€well„established€canon€of€statutory€construction€that€ð ðthe€mention€of€one€subject€in€aÐ  ` Ðstatute€means€the€exclusion€of€other€subjects€that€are€not€mentioned.ðð€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòCarver€v.€CitizenÐ ü L  ÐUtil.€Co.óó,€954€S.W.2d€34,€35€(Tenn.€1997)€(citations€omitted).€€Section€29„28„103€originallyÐ è 8  Ðcontained€one€express€exception€to€the€general€ten„year€limitations€period,€and€the€General€AssemblyÐ Ô$  Ðhas€twice€amended€the€statute€since€1978€to€include€other€express€exceptions.€€The€failure€of€theÐ À  ÐGeneral€Assembly€to€expressly€include€any€provision€exempting€persons€of€unsound€mind€from€theÐ ¬ü  Ðstatute€of€repose€strongly€indicates€its€desire€not€to€have€such€an€exemption.€€Accordingly,€we€willÐ ˜è  Ðnot€rewrite€this€statute€to€insert€other€categories€not€intended€by€the€General€Assembly.€€If€theÐ „Ô  ÐGeneral€Assembly€intended€for€mental€incapacity€to€toll€the€ten„year€statute€of€repose,€it€could€easilyÐ pÀ Ðhave€done€so€while€amending€the€statute€to€provide€for€other€exceptions.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€argues€in€response€thatÔ‡XÙ™XXXÙ™Ô€even€though€the€TPLA€statute€of€repose€contains€noÐ 4„ Ðexpress€exception€for€persons€of€unsound€mind,€operation€of€the€TPLA€statute€of€repose€isÐ  p Ðnevertheless€tolled€by€the€legal€disability€statute,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€28„1„106€(1980Ð  \ Ð&€Supp.€1999).€€Ô#†XÙ™XXXÙ™rX#ÔÔ‡XÙ™XXXÙ™ÔSection€28„1„106€reads€as€follows:Ð øH ÐÒ°ÒÒ°Òò òÌ28-1-106.€€Persons€under€disability€on€accrual€of€right.€ð"ð€ó óÐ Ð  ÐÌIf€the€person€entitled€to€commence€an€action€is,€at€the€time€the€cause€of€actionÐ ¨ø Ðaccrued,€either€within€the€age€of€eighteen€(18)€years,€or€of€unsound€mind,€suchÐ ”ä Ðperson,€or€his€representatives€and€privies,€as€the€case€may€be,€may€commence€theÐ €Ð Ðaction,€after€the€removal€of€such€disability,€within€the€time€of€limitation€for€theÐ l¼ Ðparticular€cause€of€action,€unless€it€exceed€three€(3)€years,€and€in€that€case€withinÐ X ¨ Ðthree€(3)€years€from€the€removal€of€such€disability.Ð D!” ÐÌÒ°IZÒÔ#†XÙ™XXXÙ™óY#ÔÒ°ÒAccording€to€the€plaintiffððs€interpretation,€the€General€Assembly€did€not€need€to€expressly€exemptÐ #l! Ðpersons€of€unsound€mind€from€the€TPLA€statute€of€repose€because€the€legal€disability€statuteÐ $X" Ðprovides€for€the€same€effect.€€We€disagree.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€language€of€the€legal€disability€statute€itself€strongly€suggests€that€it€only€applies€to€tollÐ Ì&"% Ðstatutes€of€limitations.€€Ô‡XÙ™XXXÙ™ÔFor€example,€the€effect€of€section€28„1„106€is€to€extend€a€limitations€periodÐ ¸'#& Ðso€that€a€plaintiff€may€ð ðcommence€the€action,ðð€and€Ô#†XÙ™XXXÙ™_#Ôthe€language€of€section€28„1„106€addresses€onlyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthose€legal€disabilities€which€were€in€place€at€ð ðtime€the€cause€of€action€accrued.ðð€As€we€statedÐ )à$( Ðpreviously,€statutes€of€repose€differ€primarily€from€statutes€of€limitations€in€that€statutes€of€reposeÐ |*Ì%) Ðbegin€to€run€with€some€defining€event€without€regard€to€the€accrual€of€the€cause€of€action.€€Indeed,Ð h+¸&* Ðit€is€certainly€possible€that€a€statute€of€repose€will€extinguish€a€cause€of€action€even€before€the€causeÐ ° Ðof€action€can€formally€accrue,€and€a€statute€of€repose€will€operate€to€extinguish€a€claim€that€hasÐ œì Ðaccrued€but€has€yet€to€be€brought,€thereby€denying€a€plaintiff€the€opportunity€to€ð ðcommence€theÐ ˆØ Ðaction.ðð€€Ô‡XÙ™XXXÙ™ÔAccordingly,€the€references€to€the€accrual€and€bringing€of€a€cause€of€action€indicate€that€thisÐ tÄ Ðsection€is€only€applicable€to€extend€the€running€of€a€statute€of€limitations,€and€we€will€not€interpretÐ `° Ðthe€legal€disability€statute€to€give€it€effect€beyond€the€fair€import€of€its€terms.Ô#†XÙ™XXXÙ™ c#ÔÐ L œ ÐÌà  àFurther,€because€ð ðstatutes€must€be€understood€in€light€of€the€purposes€the€LegislatureÐ $ t Ðintended€to€accomplish€by€their€passage,ðð€€òòBusiness€Brokerage€Ctr.€v.€Dixonóó,€874€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.Ð  ` Ð1994),€it€is€important€to€consider€the€general€background€against€which€the€General€AssemblyÐ ü L  Ðenacted€the€TPLA€in€1978.€€During€the€1970s,€state€legislatures€nationwide€began€to€adopt€statutesÐ è 8  Ðof€repose€in€response€to€a€ð ðperceived€ððcrisisðððð€in€products€liability€law€ð ðfollowing€a€decade€or€twoÐ Ô$  Ðof€rapid€expansion€of€liability.ðð€€òòSeeóó€W.€Page€Keeton,€òòProsser€and€Keeton€on€the€Law€of€Tortsóó€ðð€31,Ð À  Ðat€167„68€&€n.26€(5th€ed.€1984).€€In€Tennessee,€the€General€Assembly€also€perceived€a€ð ðcrisisðð€inÐ ¬ü  Ðproducts€liability€lawsuits,€and€it€was€clear€that€this€perceived€crisis€was€the€primary€motivation€forÐ ˜è  Ðthe€Tennessee€Products€Liability€Act€of€1978.׃5×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€the€preamble€to€the€TPLA,€the€General€AssemblyÐ „Ô  Ðstated€that€Ð pÀ ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌà ` àWHEREAS,€The€General€Assembly€finds€and€declares€that€the€number€ofÐ H˜ Ðproduct€liability€suits€and€claims€for€damages€and€the€amount€of€judgments,Ð 4„ Ðsettlements€and€the€expense€of€defending€such€suits€have€increased€greatly€in€recentÐ  p Ðyears,€and€because€of€these€increases[,]€the€cost€of€product€liability€insurance€wasÐ  \ Ðsubstantially€increased....Ð øH ÐÌà ` àWHEREAS,€In€view€of€these€recent€trends€and€for€the€purpose€of€alleviatingÐ Ð  Ðthe€adverse€effects€which€these€trends€are€producing,€it€is€necessary€to€protect€theÐ ¼  Ðpublic€interest€by€enacting€measures€designed€to€make€product€liability€insuranceÐ ¨ø Ðmore€readily€available€at€a€reasonable€cost€so€that€product€cost€may€be€lessened€toÐ ”ä Ðthe€consumer;€and€Ð €Ð ÐÌà ` àWHEREAS,€In€enacting€this€act,€it€is€the€purpose€of€the€General€AssemblyÐ X ¨ Ðto€provide€a€reasonable€time€within€which€action€may€be€commenced€againstÐ D!” Ðmanufacturers€and/or€sellers€while€limiting€the€time€to€a€specific€period€of€time€forÐ 0"€  Ðwhich€product€liability€insurance€premiums€can€be€reasonably€and€accuratelyÐ #l! Ðcalculated€.€.€.€.Ð $X" ÐÐ ô$D # ÐÒ°ÒÒ°Ò1978€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€ch.€703€preamble.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àAs€the€preamble€to€the€TPLA€indicates,€the€General€Assembly€perceived€that€uncertainty€asÐ ˆØ Ðto€future€liability€increased€the€premiums€for€product€liability€insurance,€which€in€turn€increased€theÐ tÄ Ðcosts€of€production€and€ultimately€consumer€prices.€€The€legislature€considered€the€limitation€ofÐ `° Ðfuture€liability€to€a€reasonable€and€specific€period€to€be€one€of€the€most€important€keys€in€solvingÐ L œ Ðthe€perceived€products€liability€crisis.€€Accordingly,€it€is€significant€that€the€General€AssemblyÐ 8 ˆ Ðcreated€within€the€TPLA€its€own€specific€set€of€limitation€periods€for€products€liability€actions,€ratherÐ $ t Ðthan€relying€upon€more€general€limitation€periods€found€elsewhere€in€the€code.€€In€fact,€section€29„Ð  ` Ð28„103(a)€is€quite€explicit€that€its€statutes€of€repose€apply€ð ðnotwithstanding€any€exceptionsðð€to€theÐ ü L  Ðlimitation€periods€which€would€otherwise€apply€in€Titles€28€and€47.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWhere€the€General€Assembly€enacts€some€specific€limitations€period€as€part€of€an€overallÐ À  Ðstatutory€scheme,€these€specific€limitations€will€apply€over€more€general€provisions€found€elsewhereÐ ¬ü  Ðin€the€code.€€òòSeeóó€òòDobbins€v.€Terrazzo€Mach.€&€Supply€Co.óó,€479€S.W.2d€806,€809€(Tenn.€1972)Ð ˜è  Ð(stating€that€ð ðwhere€the€mind€of€the€legislature€has€been€turned€to€the€details€of€a€subject€and€theyÐ „Ô  Ðhave€acted€upon€it,€a€statute€treating€the€subject€in€a€general€manner€should€not€be€considered€asÐ pÀ Ðintended€to€effect€the€more€particular€provisionðð).€€Therefore,€to€reason€that€the€legal€disabilityÐ \¬ Ðstatute€somehow€tolls€the€ten„year€statute€of€repose€in€section€29„28„103(a)€for€an€indefinite€periodÐ H˜ Ðof€mental€incompetency€would€be€to€defeat€the€very€purposes€behind€the€enactment€of€the€TPLA.€Ð 4„ ÐAs€the€TPLA€statute€of€repose€was€enacted€as€an€important€and€specific€measure€to€address€productsÐ  p Ðliability€actions,€we€will€not€construe€the€legal€disability€statute€to€undermine€the€purposes€behindÐ  \ Ðthat€Act.€Ð øH ÐÌÔ‡XÙ™XXXÙ™Ôà  àBecause€the€General€Assembly€has€excepted€minors€from€strict€application€of€the€ten„yearÐ Ð  Ðstatute€of€repose,€it€could€not€have€been€Ô#†XÙ™XXXÙ™qx#ÔÔ‡XÙ™XXXÙ™Ôunmindful€as€to€the€effect€of€the€TPLA€ten„year€statute€ofÐ ¼  Ðrepose€on€some€persons€with€legal€disabilities.€€Despite€the€plaintiffððs€assertions€to€the€contrary,Ð ¨ø Ðhowever,€Ô#†XÙ™XXXÙ™Vy#Ônot€all€types€of€legal€disability€affect€the€running€of€a€statute€of€repose€in€the€same€manner.€Ð ”ä ÐFor€example,€minority€differs€from€mental€incompetency€in€that€any€period€of€minority€willÐ €Ð Ðnecessarily€extend€no€longer€than€eighteen€years.€€Extending€the€running€of€a€statute€of€repose€duringÐ l¼ Ðthe€minority€of€the€plaintiff€is€not€entirely€destructive€of€the€purposes€for€which€statutes€of€reposeÐ X ¨ Ðhave€been€enacted,€because€a€defendantððs€exposure€to€liability€will€nevertheless€be€discontinued€afterÐ D!” Ðan€ascertainable€passage€of€time.€€Consequently,€by€allowing€a€special€exception€for€minors€in€theÐ 0"€  ÐTPLA€statute€of€repose,€the€General€Assembly€did€not€undermine€its€goal€of€providing€for€ð ðaÐ #l! Ðreasonable€time€within€which€action€may€be€commenced.ððÐ $X" ÐÌà  àBy€contrast,€a€policy€that€allows€a€plaintiffððs€mental€incompetency€to€toll€a€statute€of€reposeÐ à%0!$ Ðseverely€damages€the€purposes€underlying€statutes€of€repose€generally€because€it€envisions€€noÐ Ì&"% Ðpractical€end€to€a€defendantððs€liability.€€Mental€incompetency,€for€instance,€could€continueÐ ¸'#& Ðthroughout€the€plaintiffððs€lifetime,€and€even€once€ended,€could€occur€again.Ô‡XÙ™XXXÙ™Ô€€Although€section€28„1„Ð ¤(ô#' Ð106€groups€mental€incompetency€with€minority,€the€General€Assembly€was€not€required€to€toll€allÐ )à$( Ðâ âotherwise€applicable€statutes€of€repose€for€persons€falling€within€either€category€of€legal€disability,Ð |*Ì%) Ðand€we€will€not€upset€the€legislative€purpose€of€the€TPLA€by€unduly€extending€the€statute€of€reposeÐ ° Ðourselves.׃U×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XÙ™XXXÙ™¶#ÔÐ œì Ðâ âÌà  àFinally,€the€plaintiff€€urges€this€Court€to€follow€the€approach€taken€by€òòBowers€by€Bowers€v.Ð tÄ ÐHammondóó,€954€S.W.2d€752€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997),€in€which€the€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€legalÐ `° Ðdisability€statute€tolled€the€three„year€medical€malpractice€statute€of€repose,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€29„Ð L œ Ð26„116,€during€the€minority€of€the€plaintiff.€€In€dicta,€the€òòBowersóó€court€expressed€the€belief€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðminority€status€was€synonymous€with€mental€incompetency,€and€that€section€28„1„106€permittedÐ $ t Ðtolling€of€the€statute€of€repose€for€mental€incompetency€as€well.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àWe€disagree€with€the€rationale€used€by€the€òòBowersóó€court€to€find€implied€exceptions€forÐ è 8  Ðminority€and€mental€incompetence€to€the€three„year€medical€malpractice€statute€of€repose.€€TheÐ Ô$  ÐòòBowersóó€holding€is€in€stark€contrast€to€the€plain€language€of€the€statute,€which€admits€of€no€tollingÐ À  Ðother€than€for€fraudulent€concealment,€and€the€holding€fails€to€recognize€the€policies€underlying€theÐ ¬ü  Ðstatute€of€repose€itself.€€In€addition,€the€òòBowersóó€court€seems€to€have€ignored€that€the€plain€languageÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€legal€disability€statute€applies€only€to€toll€statutes€of€limitations€rather€than€statutes€of€repose.€Ô‡XÙ™XXXÙ™ÔÐ „Ô  ÐÔ#†XÙ™XXXÙ™©‡#ÔÌà  àDespite€its€imperfect€reasoning,€though,€we€note€that€the€actual€holding€of€the€òòBowersóó€courtÐ \¬ Ðdoes€little€structural€damage€to€the€medical€malpractice€statute€of€repose.€€As€we€stated€earlier,€notÐ H˜ Ðall€types€of€legal€disability€affect€the€running€of€a€statute€of€repose€in€the€same€manner,€and€anÐ 4„ Ðexception€for€minority€merely€extendsð"ðbut€does€not€practically€eliminateð"ðthe€repose€period.€Ð  p ÐBecause€òòBowersóó€has€been€the€law€in€this€state€since€1997,€and€because€the€General€Assembly€hasÐ  \ Ðmade€no€effort€to€amend€the€three„year€statute€of€repose€since€òòBowersóó€to€remove€the€impliedÐ øH Ðexception€for€minority,€we€recognize€that€the€bench,€bar,€and€the€public€in€general€may€have€variousÐ ä4 Ðreliance€interests€in€its€holding.€€Accordingly,€we€limit€the€precedential€weight€of€that€opinion€to€itsÐ Ð  Ðexplicit€holding€that€the€three„year€medical€malpractice€statute€of€repose€is€tolled€during€the€minorityÐ ¼  Ðof€the€plaintiff.€€To€the€extent€that€the€òòBowersóó€dicta€can€be€read€to€toll€any€statute€of€repose€forÐ ¨ø Ðmental€incompetency€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€28„1„106,€however,€it€is€overruled.€Ð ”ä Ðà  àÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ l¼ ÐÐ X ¨ ÐÓ  Óà  àIn€summary,€we€hold€that€the€ten„year€statute€of€repose€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ ° Ð29„28„103(a)€is€not€tolled€during€any€period€of€the€plaintiffððs€mental€incompetency.€€The€languageÐ œì Ðof€section€29„28„103(a)€admits€of€no€exception€other€than€those€expressly€listed,€the€policiesÐ ˆØ Ðunderlying€the€products€liability€statute€of€repose€are€not€furthered€by€an€implied€exception€forÐ tÄ Ðmental€incompetency,€and€the€legal€disability€statute€does€not€operate€to€toll€an€otherwise€applicableÐ `° Ðstatute€of€repose.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€upholding€the€grant€ofÐ L œ Ðsummary€judgment€to€the€defendants€is€affirmed,€and€the€plaintiffððs€action€with€respect€to€theseÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendants€is€dismissed.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€plaintiff,€Ms.€Gayle€Penley.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICE