Narrative Opinion Summary
In a wrongful death action, the surviving spouse of a mesothelioma victim sued Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, alleging that asbestos exposure caused the decedent's death. The trial court dismissed the case based on the statute of repose under T.C.A. 29-28-103(a), which requires filing within specified time limits—six years from the injury or ten from the product's initial purchase. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that this statute violated the open courts provision of the Tennessee Constitution. The appellate court conducted a de novo review and affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the statute does not infringe on constitutional rights. Citing precedent, the court noted that statutory limitations reflect a legislative balance and are not subject to case-by-case evaluation. It further clarified that the statute does not apply to injuries post-July 1, 1979. The court rejected the plaintiff's latency arguments due to a lack of supporting record evidence, although they were considered for constitutional analysis. The judgment was affirmed, and costs were assigned to the appellant.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Statute of Repose to Pre-1979 Injuriessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that the statute does not apply to injuries occurring after July 1, 1979.
Reasoning: The court also clarified that the statute does not apply to injuries occurring after July 1, 1979...
Constitutionality of Statute of Reposesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the statute of repose does not violate constitutional rights to access the courts.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the dismissal, stating that the statute of repose does not infringe on constitutional rights, referencing previous cases that upheld the statute against similar challenges.
De Novo Review by Appellate Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the case de novo, meaning no presumption of correctness was given to the trial court's decision.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the case de novo, with no presumption of correctness from the trial court's findings.
Legislative Balance of Interests in Statutory Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that statutes of repose are a legislative balance of interests and are not to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Reasoning: It emphasized that statutory limitations reflect a legislative balance of interests and cannot be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Statute of Repose under T.C.A. 29-28-103(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court dismissed the wrongful death lawsuit based on the statute of repose, which requires filing within six years of the injury or ten years of the product's initial purchase.
Reasoning: The lawsuit, initiated on August 19, 1994, was dismissed by the trial court on the basis of the statute of repose under T.C.A. 29-28-103(a), which mandates that such actions must be filed within six years of the injury or within ten years of the product's initial purchase.
Wrongful Death and Asbestos Exposuresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action claiming the decedent's death from mesothelioma was due to asbestos exposure.
Reasoning: Mary S. Hooper, as the surviving spouse of Robert Hooper, filed a wrongful death action against Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation and others, claiming her husband's death from mesothelioma was due to asbestos exposure.