PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania man who accused Apple and Verizon of committing negligence and product liability defects, when an iPhone 6s Plus smartphone allegedly exploded and seriously injured him – has rejected the defense’s summary judgment motion, which instead placed the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and related fire on his improperly-discarded smoking materials.
Robert Stiffler of Crescent Township first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on March 25, 2021 versus Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, Calif. and Verizon, Inc., of Basking Ridge, N.J.
Stiffler purchased the Apple iPhone 6s Plus smartphone from the Robinson Town Center Verizon location in Robinson, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2018. Just three days after purchasing the phone, he plugged it in to charge using the cable that came with the device, the suit said.
Approximately 10 minutes after plugging the phone in, Stiffler said the device exploded, causing shrapnel injuries and burns to him and a major fire.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 19, 2021, where each company denied liability for the plaintiff’s allegations in separate answers filed on April 26, 2021 and May 19, 2021.
Two years later, the defendant companies filed a motion for summary judgment on May 1, because in their view, “the undisputed evidence in this case establishes that the subject iPhone 6s Plus device was not defective and that it could not have caused the fire, and because plaintiff has no evidence to rebut those showings.”
“As to the existence of a defect, the undisputed evidence shows that iPhone 6s Plus devices are designed and certified as meeting or exceeding all international safety standards, and that Stiffler’s device was manufactured according to those design specifications. Stiffler has no evidence to rebut those showings and, as a result, he is unable to create a genuine dispute as the existence of a defect. Indeed, Stiffler’s only liability expert – Mr. Robert Ryhal – has expressly disclaimed any opinion that the subject iPhone 6s Plus was defective, leaving Stiffler without any evidence whatsoever on this essential element of his claims,” the summary judgment motion stated.
“As to causation, the undisputed evidence establishes that Stiffler’s iPhone 6s Plus device was not capable of having started the subject fire. It is axiomatic that, to have caused this fire, Stiffler’s iPhone 6s Plus would have had to be a competent ignition source. Yet the undisputed evidence in this case is that the subject iPhone 6s Plus was incapable of having started this fire. Stiffler has no evidence to the contrary. Indeed, Ryhal has expressly disclaimed knowledge as to whether Stiffler’s iPhone 6s Plus was capable of starting this fire. As a result, plaintiff is without evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on causation.”
The motion further argued that as to the punitive damages claim against Apple, Apple was entitled to summary judgment in its favor for two reasons.
“First, Stiffler’s punitive damages claim fails because it is entirely derivative of his underlying claims. Because those claims fail, so too does his claim for punitive damages. Second, Stiffler’s punitive damages claim also fails because the undisputed evidence establishes that Apple acted reasonably in designing its iPhone 6s Plus devices and Stiffler has no evidence to rebut that conclusion,” the motion continued.
“For nearly two years after a fire broke out in Stiffler’s bedroom, every expert who investigated the incident – including the local Fire Marshal’s office and those hired by the Stifflers’ insurance company – determined that its most likely cause was carelessly discarded smoking materials. Despite those unanimous findings, Stiffler claims that an alleged (yet still undefined) defect in his iPhone 6s Plus caused the fire. Stiffler brought suit against Apple Inc. and Verizon Inc. asserting various claims for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty and punitive damages. However, there is no evidence to create a triable issue on the existence of a defect in the device.”
UPDATE
On May 22, Stiffler’s counsel filed an opposition brief, arguing against the granting of summary judgment through their client’s presentation of sufficient evidence.
“In Pennsylvania, the law accounts for products liability cases where the subject product is unavailable, such as is the case here. Under the malfunction theory of strict products liability, a plaintiff may prove through circumstantial evidence that a product is defective. In the instant matter, Stiffler has offered sufficient evidence to establish the subject iPhone was defective pursuant to the malfunction theory. As such, genuine issues of material fact in dispute exist, which should be determined by the fact-finder and not resolved on summary judgment,” the filing stated.
“Further, where Stiffler has set-forth a prima facie showing of a defect pursuant to the malfunction theory of products liability, he has offered sufficient evidence to establish the elements of his remaining claims, including the overarching element of causation. As such, genuine issues of material fact in dispute exist, which should be determined by the fact-finder and not resolved on summary judgment.”
On the claim of punitive damages, the brief stated Stiffler has produced sufficient evidence to support his contention that defendant Apple Inc.’s actions qualified as “outrageous” and “recklessly indifferent.”
“As such, genuine issues of material fact in dispute exist, which should be determined by the fact-finder and not resolved on summary judgment. Moreover, Stiffler’s claims against Apple and Verizon Inc. survive defendants’ motion for summary judgment and thus, defendants’ motion should be denied,” the brief stated.
For counts of negligence, product liability (strict liability), breach of warranty of merchantability and punitive damages, the plaintiff is seeking said punitive damages in excess of $50,000.
The plaintiff is represented by Michael F. Santicola of Santicola Steel & Fedeles, in Beaver.
The defendants are represented by Lili Ozarowski, Thomas Crispi and Stephen M. Copenhaven of ArentFox Schiff in New York, N.Y. and Chicago, Ill., Sharon Stritmatter of Hardin Thompson and Stuart H. Sostmann of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, both in Pittsburgh and Charlene McLaughlin of Calistri McLaughlin, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00523
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-007613
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com