 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
General Electric Co. v. Process Control Co.6/8/1998
FOR PUBLICATION
United States District Court Western District of Tennessee Eastern Division
No. 1-96-1172
Hon. James D. Todd United States District Judge
This case comes to us on a certified question of law. The plaintiff, General Electric Company ("G.E."), filed this action for contribution against Process Control Company ("Process Control"). Process Control filed a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment arguing that Tennessee law does not permit a right of contribution in this case. The district court entered an order requesting this Court to address the following certified question of law:
In actions that accrue after the decision in McIntyre v. Balentine, under what circumstances is a claim for contribution appropriate under Tennessee Law?
We accepted certification of the question. We hold that under the facts as certified an action for contribution may be viable.
BACKGROUND
Douglas Huskey, a Wisconsin resident, was employed by A.O. Smith Corporation ("A.O. Smith") as an electrical engineer. In January of 1994, Huskey was calibrating meters on a switchboard at A.O. Smith's facility in Milan, Tennessee. The switchboard was manufactured by the plaintiff, G.E. An electrical arching occurred on the switchboard while Huskey was calibrating meters on the switchboard. The electrical arching caused severe burns and other injuries to Huskey. The defendant, Process Control, allegedly made negligent modifications to the switchboard prior to Huskey's accident.
Huskey and his wife filed a products liability claim against G.E. in Wisconsin. Their claims were predicated upon theories of negligence and strict liability. G.E.'s counsel was of the opinion that Process Control would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in the Wisconsin state court action. G.E., therefore, did not attempt to join Process Control as a party. G.E. argued during trial, however, that Process Control made negligent modifications to the switchboard which caused Huskey's injuries.
The case was decided by a jury under Wisconsin law. The jury rejected the strict liability claim but returned a verdict in favor of Huskey on a theory of a negligence. Fault was apportioned by the jury as follows: 25 percent to Huskey, 32 percent to G.E. and 43 percent to A.O. Smith. The jury was not asked to assess fault against Process Control. G.E. satisfied the Wisconsin judgment by paying the Huskeys approximately 2.6 million dollars.
G.E. subsequently filed the present contribution suit against Process Control, a Tennessee corporation, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. G.E. seeks contribution from Process Control for that portion of Huskey's damages attributable to Process Control under Tennessee principles of comparative fault. G.E. alleges that Huskey's injuries were caused in substantial part by a negligent modification of the switchboard performed by Process Control's employees.
Process Control filed a motion to dismiss and argued that Tennessee no longer recognizes contribution as a viable cause of action. G.E. responds that Tennessee does permit a contribution claim "in an appropriate case." G.E. argues that this is an "appropriate case" and seeks to have fault assessed in accordance with the principles set forth in McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).
ANALYSIS
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992), did not "completely abolish the remedy of contribution." Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tenn. 1994). Contribution may still be viable in the following limited
Page 1 2 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|