Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Pa. Supreme Court to determine key aspect of product liability cases

State Court
Shutterstock 146152607

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania Business Daily

PHILADELPHIA – Today, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is due to hear oral arguments in an action which will have great import for future product liability trials statewide, as it determines whether or not trial courts are permitted to prevent defendants from using evidence pertaining to industry standards.

The state’s high court will hear an appeal in Sullivan Et.Al v. Werner Company Et.Al, which not only featured a $2.5 million jury verdict at the trial court level, but also established precedent with respect to evidentiary limits in product liability actions at an appellate level, as decided by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in April 2021.

In his initial case, plaintiff Michael Sullivan alleged that Werner Company’s Baker-model scaffolds were designed defectively, arguing workers could be rotated off the scaffold’s deck pins, which would later lead the platform to collapse.

Sullivan and his wife Melissa initially filed suit against both Werner and Lowe’s, after Michael used the Baker scaffold on the job while working at Albert Schweitzer Elementary School in Levittown in June 2014.

At that time, the deck pins on the scaffold Sullivan used came loose, which then caused the platform to fall out from under him. In the incident, Sullivan broke his tailbone and suffered a litany of other injuries. Sullivan claimed he has continuing back pain, which requires ongoing care and physical therapy, in addition to treatment for multiple hernias.

Even though the scaffold met safety guidelines from both the American National Standards Institute and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Sullivan’s counsel filed a motion in limine to prevent the company defendants from bringing evidence at trial pertaining to those guidelines – saying that the state Supreme Court’s Tincher v. Omega Flex decision did not prevent barring such evidence in Pennsylvania product liability actions.

A Philadelphia court judge and jury concurred, with the latter awarding Sullivan $2.5 million for his injuries. The defendants then appealed to the Superior Court.

The 44-page ruling from the Superior Court’s panel of Victor P. Stabile, Megan McCarthy King and Dan Pellegrini issued on April 15, 2021 not only upheld the $2.5 million verdict, but also upheld the determination that defendants were barred from using evidence on a given device’s industry standards.

Pellegrini, in writing for the Superior Court, explained the Tincher decision made clear that Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts was the “touchstone” for such product liability cases statewide, where strict liability is established regardless of whether a manufacturer “exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of their product.”

“Whether a manufacturer has complied with industry or government standards goes to whether it ‘exercised all possible care in preparation of product’ in making the design choice, not on whether there was a design defect in the product itself,” Pellegrini said.

“Under the above-quoted provision of the Restatement (Second), it is irrelevant if a product is designed with all possible care, including whether it has complied with all industry and governmental standards, because the manufacturer is still liable if the product is unsafe.”

Werner Company and Lowe’s Companies, Inc. subsequently appealed this ruling to the state Supreme Court.

The case has attracted a considerable degree of outside interest and support of both sides, with the American Association for Justice and Pennsylvania Association for Justice being among those filing amici briefs supporting the plaintiffs – and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association and the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. being among those filing amici briefs supporting the defendants.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case 18 EAP 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 3086 EDA 2019

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 161003086

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News