Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (2026)
Seller's liability
✓ current as of May 2026
No product liability action, as defined in § 29-28-102, shall be commenced or maintained against any seller, other than the manufacturer, unless:
- (1) The seller exercised substantial control over that aspect of the design, testing, manufacture, packaging or labeling of the product that caused the alleged harm for which recovery of damages is sought;
- (2) Altered or modified the product, and the alteration or modification was a substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery of damages is sought;
- (3) The seller gave an express warranty as defined by title 47, chapter 2;
- (4) The manufacturer or distributor of the product or part in question is not subject to service of process in this state and the long-arm statutes of Tennessee do not serve as the basis for obtaining service of process; or
- (5) The manufacturer has been judicially declared insolvent.
Acts 1978, ch. 703, § 6; T.C.A., § 23-3706; Acts 1983, ch. 286, §1; 2011 , ch. 510, § 12.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeep, 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011).
Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeep, 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011). “) -3- Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (a)–(b) (emphasis added).”
Evelyn Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2011). “(“North Brothers”) therefore is subject to suit in strict liability pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-28-106 (2000). In September 2005, Hugh Todd Nye was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease that results from exposure to asbestos.”
Lea Ann Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (a) (2000) (emphasis added).”
Grant v. Kia Motors Corp., 185 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (E.D. Tenn. 2016). “” Accordingly, KMA claims that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 bars product liability actions against KMA.”
Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996). “[15] The strict liability action against Michael cannot be maintained unless one of the conditions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (b) (Supp. 1994) is satisfied.”
Shoemake v. Omniquip Int'l Inc., 152 S.W.3d 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “T.C.A. § 29-28-106 (2000) of the Products Liability Act reads, in relevant part, as follows: 29-28-106.”
Baker v. Promark Prods. West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844 (Tenn. 1985). “T.C.A. § 29-28-106(a). Of course, both Defendants will have the opportunity to present affirmative defenses including, but not limited to, assumption of the risk and misuse of the product.”
Seals v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 688 F. Supp. 1252 (E.D. Tenn. 1988). “The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the grounds that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the manufacturer of the product had been judicially declared insolvent or was not subject to service of process as required by T.C.A. §…”
Wielgus v. Dover Indus., Inc., 39 S.W.3d 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “The Owens court recognized that its discussion of products liability in this respect at the pleading stage was premature to development of the actual facts of the case on trial when it cautioned in footnote 15: “The strict liability action against Michael cannot be maintained…”
Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). “T.C.A. § 29-28-106. While Plaintiff does not respond to Hershey’s and Liberty Distribution’s Motions for Summary Judgment, Petco has done so.”
Braswell v. AC & S, Inc., 105 S.W.3d 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “T.C.A. 29-28-106. Seller’s liability. (b) No “product liability action,” as defined in § 29-28-102(6), when based on the doctrine of strict liability in tort, shall be commenced or maintained against any seller of a product which is alleged to contain or possess a defective…”
Rollins v. Cherokee Warehouses, Inc., 635 F. Supp. 136 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). “The parameters of a seller’s liability under the Act are set forth in T.C.A. § 29-28-106 which states as follows: "Seller's liability.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(1) — 1 case
Scruggs v. Walmart Inc. (E.D. Tenn. 2023).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(2) — 1 case
Coffey v. Dowley Mfg., Inc., 187 F. Supp. 2d 958 (M.D. Tenn. 2002).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(a) — 6 cases
Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeep, 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011). “) -3- Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (a)–(b) (emphasis added).”
Lea Ann Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (a) (2000) (emphasis added).”
Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). “T.C.A. § 29-28-106. While Plaintiff does not respond to Hershey’s and Liberty Distribution’s Motions for Summary Judgment, Petco has done so.”
Baker v. Promark Prods. West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844 (Tenn. 1985). “T.C.A. § 29-28-106(a). Of course, both Defendants will have the opportunity to present affirmative defenses including, but not limited to, assumption of the risk and misuse of the product.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(a)(1) — 2 cases
Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeep, 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011). “) -3- Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (a)–(b) (emphasis added).”
Billy Wesson & Diane Wesson v. Woodworks, Inc. v. Larry Cupples, D/B/A Constr. Co. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(a)(2) — 1 case
Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeep, 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011). “) -3- Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (a)–(b) (emphasis added).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(a)(2000) — 1 case
Sparks v. Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc., 27 So. 3d 489 (Ala. 2009).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(a)(3) — 1 case
Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeep, 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011). “) -3- Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (a)–(b) (emphasis added).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106(b) — 16 cases
Michael Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Beaman Dodge Chrysler Jeep, 356 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. 2011). “) -3- Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (a)–(b) (emphasis added).”
Evelyn Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2011). “(“North Brothers”) therefore is subject to suit in strict liability pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-28-106 (2000). In September 2005, Hugh Todd Nye was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease that results from exposure to asbestos.”
Seals v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 688 F. Supp. 1252 (E.D. Tenn. 1988). “The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the grounds that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the manufacturer of the product had been judicially declared insolvent or was not subject to service of process as required by T.C.A. §…”
Owens v. Truckstops of Am., 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996). “[15] The strict liability action against Michael cannot be maintained unless one of the conditions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-106 (b) (Supp. 1994) is satisfied.”
Wielgus v. Dover Indus., Inc., 39 S.W.3d 124 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “The Owens court recognized that its discussion of products liability in this respect at the pleading stage was premature to development of the actual facts of the case on trial when it cautioned in footnote 15: “The strict liability action against Michael cannot be maintained…”
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.