
Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history.
In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8]
Of the many issues potential strict products liability litigants are left to ponder after Tincher, one of the most basic—and possibly overlooked—issues is “When should it apply?” Specifically, if a case were filed months or even years before Tincher was decided, and it remains pending, will Azzarello’s approach to Section 402A govern the case, or does the new Tincher approach apply?
Doctrinally, this issue is framed in terms of “retroactive” versus “prospective” application. The Pennsylvania Constitution neither mandates nor forbids retroactive or prospective application of a new decision.[9] The decision to apply a new rule of law is within the complete discretion of the court.[10] And although Pennsylvania courts generally apply the law in effect at the time of an appellate decision, affording parties whose cases are pending the benefit of changes in the law, they may deviate from this approach to further the interests of justice.[11] A “sweeping rule of retroactive application” has never been the law of the Commonwealth.[12]
The decision to apply a new rule of law retroactively or prospectively is generally informed by the tripartite Chevron[13] test, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted in 1977 in Schreiber v Republic Intermodal Corp.[14] Under the test, Pennsylvania courts consider: (1) whether the decision establishes a new principle of law; (2) the merits of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and the potential impact of retroactive effect on its application; and (3) the equities involved as the case may be.[15]
In Tincher, the Supreme Court never reached this decision. It sent the issue of how to apply its new alternative standards approach to Section 402A back to the trial court.[16] Fortunately there are other sources of guidance on the issue. For example, certain voices of the Court in cases leading up to Tincher, including particularly that of the Commonwealth’s new Chief Justice, consistently favored a “purely prospective” move away from Azzarello.[17]
In Bugosh v. I.U. N. Am., Inc., for example, Chief Justice (then Justice) Thomas G. Saylor stated that, in favoring a prospective move away from Azzarello, “a predominant consideration is the settled expectations of those with accrued causes of action and a present entitlement to resort to the civil justice system.”[18] “Azzarello has been with us for too long,” then Justice Saylor added, “and too much settled jurisprudence has evolved around it, for it to be retroactively displaced without profound impact on vested entitlements.”[19]
If Tincher should apply only prospectively, i.e., not retroactively on cases that were pending when Tincher was decided, is there a cut-off point at which litigants’ “settled expectations” would no longer be spoiled by retroactive application? What about for causes of action which accrued before November 19, 2014, during Azzarello’s reign, but for which a lawsuit has not yet been commenced? Is this one of the issues the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in its parting remarks in Tincher, intended to “develop within the proper factual context against the background of targeted advocacy?”[20]
Many questions remain post-Tincher. It is clear that the Azzarello decision made Pennsylvania one of the most favorable jurisdictions in the country to pursue strict product liability claims. Azzarello is no longer the law and Tincher now provides the framework for the new landscape which needs to be navigated. This framework is in its infancy and is malleable, providing litigants with a tremendous opportunity to shape the new law to advance their respective interests favorably in the strict product liability claims arena.
[1] 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978).
[2] John M. Thomas, Defining “Design Defect” in Pennsylvania: Reconciling Azzarello and the Restatement (Third) of Torts, 71 Temp. L. Rev. 217, 217 (1998) (citing James A. Henderson, Jr., Products Liability, 2 Corp. L. Rev. 246, 248 (1979)).
[3] Ellen Wertheimer, Azzarello Agonistes: Bucking the Strict Products Liability Tide, 66 Temp. L. Rev. 419, 420 n.9 (1993) (citing Sheila L. Birnbaum, Unmasking the Test for Design Defect: From Negligence [to Warranty] to Strict Liability to Negligence, 33 Vand. L. Rev. 593, 637 (1980)) (“[S]ome commentators take issue with what they view as Azzarello’s excessive orientation towards plaintiffs.”).
[4] “One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.”
[5] 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014).
[6] The issue of whether a subrogated insurer has a direct right of recovery against a third party tortfeasor is currently pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 92 A.3d 809 (Pa. 2014). An opinion is expected sometime this year, although vacancies on the Court may delay a ruling.
[7] See Edward A. Jaeger Jr. and William L. Doerler, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard, The Subrogation Strategist (Jan. 15, 2015), available here.
[8] See id. (“In other words, plaintiffs may prove a defective condition by showing either that (1) the danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer, or that (2) a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the product outweigh the burden or costs of taking precautions.”) (internal quotation omitted).
[9] Blackwell v. Com., State Ethics Comm’n, 589 A.2d 1094, 1098 (Pa. 1991).
[10] Com. v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726, 738 (Pa. 2002) (subsequent history omitted) (citing Blackwell, 589 A.2d at 1098).
[11] Bugosh v. I.U. N. Am., Inc., 971 A.2d 1228, 1242 (Pa. 2009) (Saylor, J., dissenting, in which Castille, C.J., joins) (citations omitted). See also Blackwell, 589 A.2d at 1100 (quoting Gibson v. Com., 415 A.2d 80, 84 (Pa. 1980) (“The prime impetus behind th[e] occasional willingness not to give a decision full effect is the concern that a novel decision will unfairly prejudice those formerly advantaged by the old rules.”).
[12] Blackwell,589 A.2d at 1099.
[13] Named after Chevron Oil Co. v. Hudson, 404 U.S. 97 (1971).
[14] 375 A.2d 1285 (Pa. 1977).
[15] Bugosh, 971 A.2d at 1243 (Saylor, J., dissenting, in which Castille, C.J., joins) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
[16] Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328, 410 (Pa. 2014).
[17] See, e.g., Bugosh, 971 A.2d at 1241 (Saylor, J., dissenting, in which Castille, C.J., joins) (“I am on record as favoring prospective movement [away from Azzarello], and I remain of that position today, for the reasons I previously have stated.”) (citation omitted); Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 841 A.2d 1000, 1012 (Pa. 2003), disapproved of by McGonigal v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 2009 WL 2137210 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2009) (Saylor, J., concurring, in which Castille, C.J, and Eakin, J., join) (arguing for move away from Azzarello, “at least on a prospective basis”).
[18] 971 A.2d at 1242-43.
[19] Id. at 1243.
[20] Tincher, 104 A.3d at 410.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Minnesota
- California
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- CPSC Warning
- Rhode Island
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- New York
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Evidence
- 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
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Product Liability
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Limitation of Liability
- 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
Tags
- Subrogation
- Products Liability
- Construction Defects
- Product Liability
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- California
- Subro Sessions
- Experts
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Experts – Daubert
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Rhode Island
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Contracts
- Negligence
- Civil Procedure
- Landlord-Tenant
- Experts - Reliability
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Certificate of Merit
- Louisiana
- Amazon-eBay
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- New York
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- Experts – Qualifications
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Arizona
- Sutton Doctrine
- West Virginia
- Indiana
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Evidence
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Connecticut
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Limitation of Liability
- Apportionment
- Expert Qualifications
- Exculpatory Clause
- Amazon
- Arbitration
- Negligence – Duty
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- 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
- Circumstantial Evidence
- 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
- Lithium-ion battery
- Burden of Proof
- 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
- Third Party
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Accepted Work
- Malfunction Theory
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- 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
- Third Party Spoliation
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Inverse Condemnation
- Jury Instructions
- Food and Beverage
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Medical Benefits
- Montreal Convention
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
Authors
Archives
- 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