HARRISBURG – The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has affirmed a trial court order granting the plaintiff injured by an electric pallet jack in a product liability action, a new trial.
In a May 21 memorandum opinion, Superior Court judges Alice Beck Dubow, Maria McLaughlin and Megan McCarthy King upheld the new trial for plaintiffs Josue Perez Lopez and Mayeli Hernandez, in their suit versus Crown Equipment Corporation, OmniLift, Inc., Lift, Inc., Clemens Food Group, LLC, Clemens Family Corporation, Hatfield Quality Meats, Inc. and Hatfield Quality Meats, LLC.
Dubow authored the Court’s opinion in this matter.
“On Jan. 14, 2016, Mr. Lopez was injured in the course of his employment with Clemens Food Group while operating an electric pallet jack manufactured and distributed by appellant [Crown Equipment Corporation]. On Dec. 28, 2017, appellees filed a complaint [in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas] raising negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranties, recklessness/punitive damages and loss of consortium against appellant asserting, that the pallet jack was defective and/or defectively designed. The case proceeded through discovery. Shortly before the commencement of trial, appellees filed 15 motions in limine seeking to preclude the admission of certain evidence including evidence regarding industry standards, Mr. Lopez’s or his employer’s negligence, and evidence related to the operator manuals and warnings appellant provides to users who purchase the pallet jack at issue. The trial court denied each of appellees’ motions without prejudice to raise the objections again at the appropriate time during trial,” Dubow said.
“Immediately prior to trial, appellees filed a praecipe to withdraw their negligence claim against appellant, indicating that they wished to proceed to trial only on their strict liability claim. Trial commenced on Sept. 22, 2022, and ended in a mistrial seven days later when the number of available jurors fell below the threshold required to continue. Thereafter, the court ordered the immediate empanelment of a new jury and directed that all evidentiary rulings made thus far would remain in place, and all evidence in the record would be read to the new jury following presentation of counsel’s new opening statements. The second trial began with jury selection on Sept. 30, 2022. During both the first and second trials, appellees reasserted certain issues raised in their motions in limine. Ultimately, the trial court precluded the admission of evidence of (1) Industry standards; (2) Mr. Lopez’s or his employer’s negligence, including the employer’s failure to train; (3) The purported ubiquity or preference of customers in the marketplace for the product; (4) The instruction manual and warnings that Mr. Lopez never saw; and (5) Lack of prior incidents.”
The appellees made numerous objections during both the first and second trials to what it characterized as appellant’s counsels’ violations of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and, in three instances, requested that the court grant a mistrial – in response, the trial court sustained the objections and issued numerous warnings and admonitions to counsel to comply with its rulings. But the court, however, declined to grant a mistrial.
“On Oct. 7, 2022, the jury returned a verdict for appellant. On Oct. 17, 2022, appellees filed a post-trial motion for a new trial alleging that appellant’s counsel’s conduct in repeatedly violating the court’s evidentiary orders during trial prejudiced the jury to the extent that it was not capable of fairly weighing the evidence and entering an objective verdict. Appellees argued that appellant’s counsel’s repeated transgressions of the court’s evidentiary rulings resulted in counsel eliciting impermissible testimony regarding: (1) Employer negligence; (2) The comparative negligence of Mr. Lopez; (3) Industry standards; (4) Product warnings and instructions; (5) Collateral source; and (6) Lack of prior incidents. Appellees argued that the ‘cumulative nature of all of [appellant’s] counsel’s violations most certainly warrant a new trial [because] each violation was improper and prejudicial [and] the cumulative effect insurmountably prejudiced [appellees],” Dubow stated.
“On Oct. 27, 2022, appellant filed a response to appellees’ post-trial motion in which it argued that appellees did not present a proper basis for a new trial because appellees did not identify in the motion any evidence that the court improperly admitted at trial. Appellant asserted that appellees instead merely argued that the jury’s verdict was tainted by counsel’s questions to various witnesses; however, appellees objected to those questions and the trial court sustained the objections. Thus, according to appellant, the court prevented the admission of any evidence to the jury that may have prejudiced the outcome of the trial and, thus, the court did not commit any errors warranting a new trial.”
Ultimately, the trial court granted the appellees’ motion for a new trial, finding that “appellant’s ‘misconduct, whether intentional or not, polluted the jury and had sufficiently violated the court’s directives and repeated admonishments to have infected the proceedings and prejudiced’ appellees.”
Crown Equipment Corporation appealed to the Superior Court and challenged this ruling which granted the plaintiffs a new trial, arguing that the trial court (1) “failed to identify a single mistake or error that was made during the trial”, (2) “erred in granting a new trial without identifying any inadmissible evidence or conduct of counsel that was actually presented to the jury and which unfairly prejudiced [appellees]” and (3) “erred in granting a new trial because its order was an abuse of discretion, manifestly unreasonable, and based upon a misapplication of the law and the trial court’s partiality and bias.”
However, the Superior Court did not concur with this perspective and instead affirmed the original ruling of the trial court.
“The trial judge, an experienced and impartial jurist, presided over both the first and second trials in this matter and, thus, had the opportunity to twice observe the atmosphere of the trial and to determine whether counsel’s conduct had a prejudicial effect on the jury. Following its observations of counsel’s conduct, the court concluded that a new trial was warranted. As noted above, the court explained that it reached this conclusion based on appellant’s counsel’s: (1) ‘persistent and demonstrated intentional efforts to mislead the jury and confuse the issues in this case’; (2) ‘substantial and prejudicial violations of the court’s rulings on admissible evidence’ which ‘suggested purposeful attempts to evade the court’s rulings despite admonitions to counsel’; and (3) persistent attempts to ‘shift the issues in the trial to defenses prejudicial, unrelated, and unavailable to a defendant in a strict product liability action.’ Following its consideration of the verdict and the record as a whole, the court concluded that appellant’s counsel’s misconduct ‘infected the proceedings and prejudiced [appellees]’ by ‘profoundly and pervasively tainting’ the proceedings.’ The court in its discretion, thus, determined that ‘the only just and proper remedy’ was to grant appellees a new trial,” Dubow said.
“Following our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion. In light of the unique circumstances of this case, the trial court’s decision to grant appellees’ motion for a new trial was based on careful observation of the proceedings and thoughtful consideration of the parties’ interests and their arguments. Appellant has not persuaded this Court that the trial court failed to apply the law or rendered a decision that was manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order awarding appellees a new trial. Order affirmed.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 3146 EDA 2022
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 171204161
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com