Tennessee § 29-28-105 - Determination of defective or dangerous condition.

§ 29-28-105. Determination of defective or dangerous condition.

A manufacturer or seller of a product shall not be liable for any injury to a person or property caused by the product unless the product is determined to be in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the control of the manufacturer or seller. In making this determination, the state of scientific and technological knowledge available to the manufacturer or seller at the time the product was placed on the market, rather than at the time of injury, is applicable. Consideration is given also to the customary designs, methods, standards and techniques of manufacturing, inspecting and testing by other manufacturers or sellers of similar products. This section does not apply to an action based on express warranty or misrepresentation regarding the chattel. A product is not unreasonably dangerous because of a failure to adequately warn of a danger or hazard that is apparent to the ordinary user. Acts 1978, ch. 703, §§ 5, 8; T.C.A, § 23-3705. Law Reviews. Comments on the Report of the Governor's Commission on Tort and Liability Insurance Reform (Jerry J. Phillips), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 679 (1986). For an article, Products Liability — Tennessee's Prudent Manufacturer Test, see 67 Tenn. L. Rev. 307 (2000). Mass Tort Litigation in Tennessee (Paul Campbell, III and Hugh J. Moore, Jr.), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 221 (1986). Skimming the Trout From the Milk: Using Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Product Defects Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability Section 3, Tennessee and Beyond, 68 Tenn. L. Rev. 647 (2001). Symposium: On Product “Design Defects” and Their Actionability (John W. Wade), 33 Vand. L. Rev. 551 (1980). Symposium: Unmasking the Test for Design Defect: From Negligence [to Warranty] to Strict Liability to Negligence (Sheila L. Birnbaum), 33 Vand. L. Rev. 593 (1980). 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. Cited: Caldwell v. Ford Motor Co., 619 S.W.2d 534, 1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981); McKinnie v. Lundell Mfg. Co., 825 F. Supp. 834, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9130 (W.D. Tenn. 1993); Abbott v. American Honda Motor Co., 682 S.W.2d 206, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 3056 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Baker v. Promark Products West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844, 1985 Tenn. LEXIS 531 (Tenn. 1985); Cansler v. Grove Mfg. Co., 826 F.2d 1507, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11061 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1987); Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Water Services, Inc., 758 S.W.2d 525, 1988 Tenn. LEXIS 174 (Tenn. 1988); Ray by Holman v. BIC Corp., 925 S.W.2d 527, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 467 (Tenn. 1996); Ladd by Ladd v. Honda Motor Co., 939 S.W.2d 83, 1996 Tenn. App. LEXIS 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Alexander v. Antonio Zamperla, S.P.A., — S.W.3d —, 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 549 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2010).