In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 18 EAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 1715 (Dec. 22, 2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) clarified that in light of its decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296 (2014), evidence that a product complied with industry standards is inadmissible in an action involving strict product liability.
In Tincher, the Supreme Court overruled prior case law and reaffirmed that Pennsylvania is a Second Restatement Jurisdiction. As stated in Sullivan, discussing Tincher, under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, a “seller of a product has a duty to provide a product that is free from ‘a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or [the consumer’s] property.’ To prove breach of this duty, a ‘plaintiff must prove that a seller (manufacturer or distributor) placed on the market a product in a “defective condition.””
As stated in Sullivan (discussing Tincher), a defective condition can be shown either through the “consumer expectations test” (where “the product is in a defective condition if the danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer”) or the “risk-utility test” (where “a product is in a defective condition if a ‘reasonable person’ would conclude the probability and seriousness of harm caused by the product outweigh the burden or costs of taking precautions”). A plaintiff can establish the defective condition “under either theory, or both in the alternative.”
While the Tincher court overruled Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co., Inc., 480 Pa. 547 (1978), it declined to overrule Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-Norton Co., Inc., 515 Pa. 334 (1987) regarding the admissibility of evidence of industry or government standards (known as “compliance evidence”). The Tincher court determined that “common law regarding these considerations should develop within the proper factual contexts against the background of targeted advocacy.”
Turning to the case at hand, in Sullivan, a worker, Michael Sullivan (Sullivan), was injured when the platform of a mobile scaffold collapsed, causing him to fall and become injured. The platform was secured to the frame of the scaffold by two spring-loaded deck pins that the user rotated to cover the platform after it was seated in the scaffold. Sullivan brought a strict liability action against Werner Company and Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (collectively, “Appellants”), “alleging that the mobile scaffold system was defectively designed because it was possible for a user to inadvertently rotate the deck pins off the platform during normal use” causing the platform to collapse. Sullivan pursued a risk-utility theory to prove that the scaffold was defective.
Prior to trial, Sullivan filed a motion to preclude Appellants from admitting evidence of any industry or government standards at trial pursuant to Lewis. The trial court granted the motion, thereby precluding the introduction of any compliance evidence. At trial, the jury found Appellants liable to Sullivan for $2.5 million in damages.
Appellants filed a motion for post-trial relief, arguing the compliance evidence was improperly excluded. The trial court denied the motion and Appellants appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court, finding, among other things, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because a “manufacturer’s compliance with industry or government standards goes to whether it exercised due care but not to whether it defectively designed the product.”
The Supreme Court ultimately held that evidence of compliance with industry standards is inadmissible under the risk-utility test in strict product liability cases. The Supreme Court noted that in Lewis, the court found “the proper focus of a design defect case is on the characteristics of the product and not the conduct of the manufacturer.” In addition, Tincher emphasized that strict liability is a distinct theory from negligence. While there are overlapping elements of strict liability and negligence (and breach of warranty), strict liability imposes a duty “to produce and/or market a product without ‘a defective condition unreasonably dangerous’…different from the duty of due care in negligence.”
As stated by the Supreme Court, “compliance evidence is simply evidence of the ultimate conclusion that a product complies with government regulations or industry standards, i.e., that a government agency or industry would deem the product not defective.” However, this “does not prove any characteristic of the product; rather, it diverts attention from the product’s attributes to both the manufacturer’s conduct and whether a standards-issuing organization would consider the product to be free from defects.” The Supreme Court determined that neither is pertinent to a strict liability, the risk-utility analysis.
Appellants argued (and the dissent noted) that finding compliance evidence inadmissible would place Pennsylvania in a minority position nationwide (the dissent notes that 44 states found mandatory governmental safety standards admissible, and 46 states found voluntary industry safety standards admissible).
The Supreme Court was unpersuaded by this argument, finding that “strict liability remains distinct from negligence in that it imposes liability without fault [and] reflects the ‘social and economic policy of this Commonwealth,’ which is that ‘those who sell a product…are held responsible for damage caused to a consumer by the reasonable use of the product. The risk of injury is placed, therefore, upon the supplier of the products.”
Subrogation professionals must be mindful of the varying evidentiary standards in each jurisdiction—particularly when it comes to strict product liability. In an instance such as this, the loss jurisdiction may fundamentally alter the admissibility of foundational evidence to prove a strict liability case. A thorough understanding of each jurisdiction ensures maximum recovery.
Recent Posts
Categories
- CPSC Recalls
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- California
- Minnesota
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- CPSC Warning
- Rhode Island
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Malpractice
- Wyoming
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Arkansas
- Product Liability
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Georgia
- Limitation of Liability
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Causation
- Architects-Engineers
- Evidence
- New York
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
Tags
- Construction Defects
- Product Liability
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- California
- Experts
- Subro Sessions
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Experts – Daubert
- Rhode Island
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Contracts
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Negligence
- Landlord-Tenant
- Civil Procedure
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Experts - Reliability
- Certificate of Merit
- Amazon-eBay
- Louisiana
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Experts – Qualifications
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Sutton Doctrine
- Arizona
- Indiana
- West Virginia
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Connecticut
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- Limitation of Liability
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Apportionment
- Exculpatory Clause
- Expert Qualifications
- Arbitration
- Amazon
- Negligence – Duty
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Washington
- AIA Contract
- Warranty - Implied
- Res Judicata
- Settlement
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Improvement
- Michigan
- Malpractice
- Idaho
- Internet Sales
- Non-Party at Fault
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Gross Negligence
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Independent Duty
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- North Carolina
- Utah
- Standing
- Comparative Fault
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Contracts - Formation
- Unconscionable
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Burden of Proof
- Lithium-ion battery
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- New Hampshire
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- Daubert
- Fire - Cigarettes
- Colorado
- Causation
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Discovery - Experts
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Reimbursement
- Assignment
- Counterclaim
- Products Liability; Malfunction Theory
- Economic Loss Rule
- Unfair Trade Practices
- Evidence – Probative Value
- Parties – Real Party in Interest
- Status of Repose
- Evidence - Public
- Construction Defects - Fixtures
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Additional Insured
- Trespass
- Contract
- COVID-19
- Incorporation by Reference
- Damages – Emotional Distress
- Oregon
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Third Party Spoliation
- Inverse Condemnation
- Food and Beverage
- Jury Instructions
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Montreal Convention
- Medical Benefits
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Evidence
- Malfunction Theory
- New York
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
Authors
Archives
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- December 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013