Tennessee § 29-34-307 Claims against premises owner - Presumptions

Tennessee Statutes

§ 29-34-307 — Claims against premises owner - Presumptions

Tennessee § 29-34-307

Title29

This text of Tennessee § 29-34-307 (Claims against premises owner - Presumptions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-34-307 (2026).

Text

The following shall apply to all civil actions for silica or mixed dust disease claims brought against a premises owner to recover damages or other relief for exposure to silica or mixed dust on the premises owner's property:

(1)A premises owner is not liable for any injury to any individual resulting from silica or mixed dust exposure, unless that individual's alleged exposure occurred while the individual was on the premises owner's property;

(2)If exposure to silica or mixed dust is alleged to have occurred after January 1, 1972, it is presumed that products containing silica or mixed dust used on the premises owner's property contained silica or mixed dust only at levels below safe levels of exposure. To rebut this presumption, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evide

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The following shall apply to all civil actions for silica or mixed dust disease claims brought against a premises owner to recover damages or other relief for exposure to silica or mixed dust on the premises owner's property: (1) A premises owner is not liable for any injury to any individual resulting from silica or mixed dust exposure, unless that individual's alleged exposure occurred while the individual was on the premises owner's property; (2) If exposure to silica or mixed dust is alleged to have occurred after January 1, 1972, it is presumed that products containing silica or mixed dust used on the premises owner's property contained silica or mixed dust only at levels below safe levels of exposure. To rebut this presumption, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the levels of silica or mixed dust in the immediate breathing zone of the plaintiff regularly exceeded the threshold limit values adopted by this state; and (3) (A) A premises owner is presumed to be not liable for any injury to any invitee who was engaged to work with, install, or remove products containing silica or mixed dust on the premises owner's property, if the invitee's employer held itself out as qualified to perform the work. To rebut this presumption, the plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the premises owner had actual knowledge of the potential dangers of the products containing silica or mixed dust at the time of the alleged exposure that was superior to the knowledge of both the invitee and the invitee's employer; (B) A premises owner that hired a contractor before January 1, 1972, to perform the type of work at the premises owner's property that the contractor was qualified to perform shall not be liable for any injury to any individual resulting from silica or mixed dust exposure caused by any of the contractor's employees or agents on the premises owner's property, unless the premises owner directed the activity that resulted in the injury or approved the critical acts that led to the individual's injury; (C) If exposure to silica or mixed dust is alleged to have occurred after January 1, 1972, a premises owner is not liable for any injury to any individual resulting from that exposure caused by a contractor's employee or agent on the premises owner's property, unless the plaintiff establishes the premises owner's intentional violation of an established safety standard in effect at the time of the exposure, and that the alleged violation was in the plaintiff's immediate breathing zone and was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.