Tennessee § 29-28-103 - Limitation of actions — Exception.

§ 29-28-103. Limitation of actions — Exception.

Any action against a manufacturer or seller of a product for injury to person or property caused by its defective or unreasonably dangerous condition must be brought within the period fixed by §§ 28-3-104, 28-3-105, 28-3-202 and 47-2-725, but notwithstanding any exceptions to these provisions, it must be brought within six (6) years of the date of injury, in any event, the action must be brought within ten (10) years from the date on which the product was first purchased for use or consumption, or within one (1) year after the expiration of the anticipated life of the product, whichever is the shorter, except in the case of injury to minors whose action must be brought within a period of one (1) year after attaining the age of majority, whichever occurs sooner. The foregoing limitation of actions shall not apply to any action resulting from exposure to asbestos or to the human implantation of silicone gel breast implants. Any action against a manufacturer or seller for injury to a person caused by a silicone gel breast implant must be brought within a period not to exceed twenty-five (25) years from the date such product was implanted; provided, that such action must be brought within four (4) years from the date the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury. For purposes of this subsection (c) only, “seller” does not include a hospital or other medical facility where the procedure took place, nor does “seller” include the physician or other medical personnel involved in the procedure. This subsection (c) only applies to causes of action not pending or decided on or before May 26, 1993. For the purposes of this subsection (c), a “pending case” is defined as a case actually filed by a silicone gel-filled breast implant recipient. Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 3; 1979, ch. 162, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3703; Acts 1993, ch. 457, §§ 1, 2. Textbooks. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates (4th ed., Phillips and Robinson), § 637. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 18 Tenn. Juris., Limitations of Actions, §§ 4, 17, 34, 45; 19 Tenn. Juris., Negligence, § 14. Law Reviews. An Analysis of the Legal, Social, and Political Issues Raised by Asbestos Litigation (Special Project), 36 Vand. L. Rev. 573 (1983). Constitutional Law — Limitation of Actions — Application of the Vested Rights Doctrine (David A. King), 51 Tenn. L. Rev. 129 (1983). Mass Tort Litigation in Tennessee (Paul Campbell, III and Hugh J. Moore, Jr.), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 221 (1986). Products Liability — Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.: The Purist's Form of Market Share Liability Applied to DES Cases, 20 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 667 (1991). Savings Statutes v. Statutes of Repose: A Decision Is Reached with Cronin v. Howe (Philip E. Mischke), 32 No. 1 Tenn. B.J. 21 (1996). The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns, 38 Vand. L. Rev. 627 (1985). The Restatement (Third) of Products Liability: Is it a Reasonable Alternative Design to Tennessee's Products Liability Statute? (Robert S. Stevens), 39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 463 (2009). The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105. The Tolling of Statutes of Limitations in Tennessee, 14 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 375 (1984). Attorney General Opinions. Constitutionality of proposed exception for PCBs, OAG 86-57 (3/11/86). Constitutionality, OAG 86-60 (3/13/86). Cited: Commercial Truck & Trailer Sales, Inc. v. McCampbell, 580 S.W.2d 765, 1979 Tenn. LEXIS 427 (Tenn. 1979); Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co., 577 F. Supp. 35, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10225 (E.D. Tenn. 1981); County of Johnson by Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co., 580 F. Supp. 284, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20642 (E.D. Tenn. 1984); Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 776 F.2d 1565, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23925 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1985); Lee v. Toshiba Machine Co., 804 F. Supp. 1029, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21204 (E.D. Tenn. 1992); Smith v. Grumman-Olsen Corp., 913 F. Supp. 1077, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19800 (E.D. Tenn. 1995); Harper v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 1025, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19777 (E.D. Tenn. 1996); Calaway ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 1061 (Tenn. 2005).