McCown v. International Harvester Company
463 Pa. 13, 342 A.2d 381 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's contributory negligence, which consists of conduct other than knowingly and unreasonably encountering a known product defect, is not a valid defense in a strict products liability action under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Facts:
- An unnamed manufacturer designed and produced a large over-the-road tractor with a steering mechanism that required twelve to fifteen percent more mechanical effort to operate than normal.
- John McCown was operating this tractor for several hours before he stopped on the shoulder of the Pennsylvania Turnpike to perform an equipment check.
- As McCown attempted to reenter the highway, he struck an adjoining guardrail with the tractor's right front tire.
- The collision, unrelated to the difficulty in steering, caused the steering wheel to spin violently in the opposite direction due to the steering system's design.
- The spokes of the rapidly counter-rotating steering wheel struck McCown's right arm, fracturing his wrist and forearm.
- For the purposes of the appeal, the manufacturer conceded that the steering system's design constituted a defect.
Procedural Posture:
- John McCown sued the tractor manufacturer in a Pennsylvania trial court, alleging strict products liability under Section 402A.
- The trial court found the manufacturer liable for McCown's injuries.
- The manufacturer, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The manufacturer, as appellant, was granted an appeal (allocatur) to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court, limited to the issue of the availability of contributory negligence as a defense.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's contributory negligence, such as the negligent operation of a vehicle, serve as a defense to liability in a strict products liability action brought under Section 402A?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, C.J.
No. A plaintiff's contributory negligence is not an available defense in a strict liability action under Section 402A. The court fully adopts the principles of comment n to Section 402A, which explicitly rejects contributory negligence as a defense when it consists merely of a failure to discover a defect or guard against its possibility. To allow such a defense would undermine a core policy of strict liability: the consumer's reasonable expectation of product safety, which is based on the manufacturer's implied representation that its products are safe for their intended use. The law should not require consumers to inspect products for defects when they are entitled to assume the items are safe. While assumption of the risk remains a valid defense, ordinary contributory negligence does not bar or reduce recovery.
Concurring - Pomeroy, J.
No. The majority correctly holds that McCown's negligence in operating the tractor should not bar his recovery. The policy underlying Section 402A is that manufacturers are better able to bear and distribute the losses caused by product defects than individual consumers. This loss-spreading rationale applies regardless of the user's ordinary negligence. However, a plaintiff's negligence may still be relevant, not as a direct defense, but to negate an essential element of the cause of action. For example, evidence of negligent use could show that the plaintiff caused the defect, that the product was being used abnormally (and was thus not defective for normal use), or that the defect was not the legal cause of the injury.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes in Pennsylvania law that strict products liability is fundamentally different from negligence, precluding the use of a traditional contributory negligence defense. It reinforces the consumer-protection rationale of Section 402A, placing the focus on the defective nature of the product rather than the conduct of the user. By distinguishing ordinary carelessness from the higher bar of 'assumption of the risk,' the court clarifies that only a plaintiff's conscious decision to encounter a known danger can defeat a strict liability claim, thereby strengthening the legal protection for consumers injured by defective products.
