Jump to:

Philip Morris

Tennessee Code Annotated Title 29. Remedies and Special Proceedings Chapter 28. Products Liabilities Actions Tenn. Code Ann. Section 29-28-104 (920000)

Date: 1992 (est.)
Length: 1 page
2023612085
Jump To Images
snapshot_pm 2023612085

Fields

Area
PURCELL,CLARE/FILE AREA
Type
COMP, COMPUTER PRINTOUT
REGU, REGULATION
Master ID
2023611988/2149

Related Documents:
Request
Stmn/R1-028
Document File
2023611962/2023612150/Iaq Sick Buildings
Litigation
Stmn/Produced
Site
R592
Author (Organization)
Lexis Nexis
Mead Data Central
Date Loaded
05 Jun 1998
UCSF Legacy ID
glw24e00

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: glw24e00
TENN. CODE ANN. § 29-28-104 (1992) printed in FULL format. TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED Copyright (c) 1955-1992 by The State of Tennessee All rights reserved. *** *** THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 1992 SUPPLEMENT *** (1992 SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY) *** TITLE 29. REMEDIES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAPTER 28. PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTIONS Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-104 (1992) 29-28-104. Compliance PAGE with government standards -- Rebuttable presumption 12 Compliance by a manufacturer or seller with any federal or state statute or administrative regulation existing at the time a product was manufactured and prescribing standards for design, inspection, testing, manufacture, labeling, warning or instructions for use of a product, shall raise a rebuttable presumption that the product is not in an unreasonably dangerous condition in regard to matters covered by these standards. HISTORY: Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 4; T.C.A., § 23-3704. d NOTES: LAW REVIEWS. Mass Tort Litigation in Tennessee (Paul Campbell, III and Hugh J. Moore, Jr.), 53 Tenn. L. Rev. 221 (1986). The Tennessee Products Liability Act, 9 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 105. The Role of Federal Safety Regulations in Products Liability Acticais (Teresa Moran Schwartz), 41 Vand. L. Rev. 6 (1988). CITED: Baker v. Laderle Labs., 696 S.W.2d 890 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985); Myers v. Hayes Int'l Corp., 701 F. Supp. 613 (M.D. Tenn. 1988). NOTES TO DECISIONS ANALYSIS 1. Evidence. 2. Jury instructions. 1. EVIDENCE. Where defendant-company offered evidence that warning labels on its products were EPA approved and in full compliance with all applicable federal standards, and the plaintiff introduced no evidence to challenge defendants' compliance with any of these federal regulations, the rebuttable presumption that the defendant's products were not unreasonably dangerous was not overcome. Goins v. Clorox Co., 926 F.2d 559 (6th Cir. 1991). 2. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Evidence of compliance with government standards sufficient to justify instruction based on this section. Clarksville-Montgomery County School Sys. v. United States Gypsum Co., 925 F.2d 993 (6th Cir. 1991). COLLATERAL REFERENCES. 77 C.J.S. Supplement Products Liability § 94. Products liability Key 75-80. : ~- ~ LEX1S ~ NEXIS®=~= nrices of Mead Data Centra(, Ina LEXIS O NEXIS =N=

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: