Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-104 (2026)
Compliance with government standards - Rebuttable presumption
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) 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.
- (b) A manufacturer or seller, other than a manufacturer of a drug or device, shall not be liable for exemplary or punitive damages if:
- (1) The product alleged to have caused the harm was designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, sold, or represented in relevant and material respects in accordance with the terms of approval, license or similar determination of a government agency; or
- (2) The product was in compliance with a statute of the state or the United States, or a standard, rule, regulation, order, or other action of a government agency pursuant to statutory authority, when such statute or agency action is relevant to the event or risk allegedly causing the harm and the product was in compliance at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller.
- (c) Subsection (b) shall not apply if the claimant establishes that the manufacturer or seller:
- (1) At any time before the event that allegedly caused the harm, sold the product after the effective date of an order of a government agency that ordered the removal of the product from the market or withdrew the agency's approval of the product; or
- (2) In violation of applicable regulations, withheld or misrepresented to the government agency information material to the approval and such information is relevant to the harm which the claimant allegedly suffered.
- (d) The award of punitive or exemplary damages against a manufacturer of a drug or device shall be governed by § 29-39-104.
Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 4; T.C.A., §23-3704; Acts 2011 , ch. 510, § 11.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Hughes v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., Inc., 2 S.W.3d 218 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Hughes v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., Inc., 2 S.W.3d 218 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-28-104 (1980) provides as follows: Compliance with government standardsRebuttable presumption.”
Jeremy Flax v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 272 S.W.3d 521 (Tenn. 2008). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-104 . It is equally true, for the reasons stated above, that the evidence in this case thoroughly rebutted that presumption.”
Sharon Surles, by Next Friend Jayneice Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 474 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2007). “1977), and Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-104 . 4 A district court commits reversible error in refusing to give a jury instruction at a party’s request where “(1) the omitted instructions are a correct statement of the law; (2) the instruction is not substantially covered by other…”
Tuggle v. Raymond Corp., 868 S.W.2d 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “At the close of the proof, Raymond sought a jury instruction based on T.C.A. § 29-28-104 (Tenn.1980) 3 , which affords a rebuttable presumption in favor of a manufacturer who complies with “any federal or state statute or administrative regulation” in existence at the time the…”
In re Accutane Litig., 194 A.3d 503 (N.J. 2018). “2016) ); Tennessee ( Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-104 ; Goins v. Clorox Co.”
Clarksville-Montgomery Cnty. Sch. Sys. v. United States Gypsum Co., Nat'l Gypsum Co., 925 F.2d 993 (6th Cir. 1991). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-28-104. The gravamen of Clarks-ville’s claim is that the court's instruction to the jury, that it had heard testimony concerning government standards, was an erroneous comment on nonexistent facts.”
Clifton A. Lake v. The Memphis Landsmen, LLC, 405 S.W.3d 47 (Tenn. 2013). “The other two issues raised by Metrotrans, as restated by the Court of Appeals, were (1) ”[w]hether the trial court should have granted a directed verdict against the [Plaintiffs] based on the use of tempered glass in the windows,” and (2) ”[w]hether the trial court should have…”
Whaley v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 900 S.W.2d 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “V In stating its first issue, and we have purposely copied the issues verbatim from the brief, Rheem alludes to “the plaintiffs’ unsupported assumptions,” asserts that the statutory presumption of T.C.A. § 29-28-104 has not been “overcome,” talks about hypothesizing a defect…”
Baker v. Lederle Labs., 696 S.W.2d 890 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). “As to the remaining defendant, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated’s motion for summary judgment also relied upon T.C.A., § 29-28-104. No affidavit was filed in support of that motion but, subsequent to the hearing on all motions which was held on May 31, and while the…”
Myers v. Hayes Int'l Corp., 701 F. Supp. 618 (M.D. Tenn. 1988). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-28-104 and Ky.Rev.Stat.”
Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). “T.C.A. § 29-28-104. As for the claims against Liberty Distribution, the undisputed evidence is that Liberty Distribution received the pattie in a sealed corrugated cardboard box, stored it in a temperature-controlled environment, and had no ability to inspect the individual…”
Zimmerman v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 889 F. Supp. 2d 757 (D. Maryland 2012). “§ 2A:58C-4; Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-28-104; Tex. Civ. Prac.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-104(a) — 2 cases
Sarah Elizabeth Woodruff v. Ford Motor Co. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
Sarah Elizabeth Woodruff ex rel. Ethan Woodruff v. Ford Motor Co. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.