
Since the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), parties proceeding in product liability cases in Pennsylvania often disagree about jury instructions. In Davis v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., No. 1405 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2763, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an unpublished opinion,[1] recently addressed whether the trial court gave proper jury instructions in a products liability case against Volkswagen entities, including Volkswagen Aktiengeselleschaft (Volkswagen). The court held that, despite a statement in Tincher that the plaintiff is the “master of the claim,” the trial court properly instructed the jury on both the consumer expectation test and the risk-utility test for establishing that the product at issue, a Volkswagen Passat, was in a defective condition.
Davis dealt with a claim brought against Volkswagen by Jane E. Davis (Davis), the executor of the Estate of Robert N. Davis, who died in an automobile accident that occurred in February of 2012. The accident occurred when a vehicle driven by Alfred Hanna (Hanna) crossed the centerline of a highway and struck the Passat driven by the plaintiff’s decedent. After Hanna’s vehicle hit the decedent’s vehicle and the Passat came to a rest, fire consumed the Passat and the decedent died because of injuries from the fire. Subsequently, Davis filed suit against, among others, Volkswagen. Davis asserted several claims against Volkswagen, including a strict liability claim based on an alleged design defect in the Passat’s fuel tank. Because the alleged defect in the fuel tank was not the cause of the accident, Davis argued that Volkswagen failed to comply with its duty to design and build a crashworthy vehicle. To establish her crashworthiness claim against Volkswagen, Davis had to prove that the Passat’s fuel tank was defective.
At trial, to show that the Passat was in a defective condition, Davis asked the court to apply the consumer expectation test. Volkswagen argued that, because Davis’ design defect claim was complex, she had to use the risk-utility test to establish the Passat’s defective condition. The court denied Davis’ request and instructed the jury that Davis could establish the vehicle’s defective condition using either the consumer expectation test or the risk-utility test. After the jury found that Volkswagen was not liable, Davis appealed.
On appeal, Davis argued that the trial court erred by refusing to allow her to pursue her chosen theory of liability. In support of her argument, Davis asserted that she was entitled to proceed on a consumer expectation theory because the Tincher court stated that “the plaintiff is the master of the claim in the first instance.”[2] The Superior Court disagreed.
As noted by the court, although Tincher states that the plaintiff is the master of the claim in the first instance, it also noted that trial court judges act as gatekeepers, whose roles include narrowing or expanding the theories of litigation to be pursued at trial. In addition, the Superior Court pointed out that the Tincher court stated that, “[w]here evidence supports a party-requested instruction on a theory or defense, a charge on the theory or defense is warranted.”[3] Because Volkswagen admitted into evidence expert testimony that the fuel tank was not punctured and that the fire started in the engine, not near the fuel tank, the Superior Court found that Volkswagen put the risk-utility test into issue. Thus, the Superior Court held that the trial court properly instructed the jury as to both tests. Further, the court held that Davis’ contention that, by instructing the jury on the risk-utility test, the court prevented her from litigating the cause under her chosen theory was without merit. Davis’ contention was without merit because, in addition to instructing the jury on the risk-utility test, the trial court also instructed the jury on the consumer expectation test.
Although the Superior Court found that the trial court’s jury instructions on both tests were appropriate, the concurring opinion, joined by two of the three judges on the panel, found that, because any alleged error was harmless, the Superior Court did not need to address the merits of Davis’ argument. Thus, while the Superior Court’s majority opinion provides persuasive authority, its analysis appears to be little more than dicta. The majority opinion’s analysis, however, is still instructive as it provides insight into how the Superior Court will handle future cases dealing with this issue.
In addition to the majority opinion providing insight into how courts will proceed going forward, the concurring opinion provides insight into possible arguments the parties can raise in future cases. Based on the concurring opinion, it appears that the Superior Court had reservations about whether the consumer expectation test applied in the first instance because it was unclear whether consumers were knowledgeable enough about the design of fuel tanks to form expectations regarding the design. However, because no party addressed this issue, the court did not decide whether the plaintiff could rely on the consumer expectations test in the first instance. The concurring opinion also questioned whether Volkswagen could properly defend against the plaintiff’s consumer expectation test theory by using a risk-utility analysis. However, because the issue on appeal was narrowly drawn, the Superior Court did not need to decide this issue. Although the Superior Court did not decide the issues noted in the concurring opinion, the fact that the court identified these potential issues without deciding them suggests that parties involved in a case where the plaintiff seeks to proceed using a consumer expectation theory will raise similar issues in the future.
[1] Pursuant to Superior Court I.O.P. 65.37 and Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), unpublished memorandum decisions issued after May 1, 2019 can be cited as persuasive authority.
[2] Tincher, 104 A.3d at 406.
[3] Id. at 428-29.
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