Tennessee
How Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc. applies in Tennessee: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts (Products Liability).
Tennessee follows a modified version of strict products liability, requiring a showing that the product was unreasonably unsafe and defective. The state gives heed to the consumer expectation test alongside risk-benefit analysis when assessing product defects.
In Tennessee, a plaintiff must establish that the product was defectively designed or manufactured, and that this defect resulted in their injury, employing both the consumer expectation standard and the risk-utility analysis.
The court found that the manufacturer was liable for the injuries caused by a defective product due to the failure to warn and provide adequate instructions.
The court held that the product was defective because it did not meet consumer expectations regarding safety.
The Tennessee Supreme Court reinforced that a product's non-compliance with safety standards can constitute evidence of a defect.
Tennessee's approach to products liability emphasizes state-specific tests, predominantly the consumer expectation and risk-utility standards, which align with and supplement the broader federal standards outlined in the Restatement (Third) of Torts and corresponding case law. Federal courts often focus more narrowly on the feasibility of alternative designs, while Tennessee emphasizes the expectations of ordinary consumers.
Torts, particularly products liability, frequently appear on the Tennessee bar exam as candidates must demonstrate an understanding of defect standards and liability principles.