Pennfield Corporation v. Meadow Valley Electric, Inc.
604 A.2d 1082 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The theory of alternative liability, which shifts the burden of proof on causation to the defendants, applies only when all potential defendants are proven to have engaged in tortious conduct. This theory cannot be used when only one of multiple potential defendants could be responsible for the harm, as the others are necessarily innocent.
Facts:
- Pennfield Corporation owned 1,537 swine housed at Mountain View Farms.
- The swine suffocated and died when an electrically operated ventilation system in their housing facility failed.
- Meadow Valley Electric, Inc. had performed repair and maintenance services on the farm's electrical equipment.
- The ventilation system's failure was allegedly caused by a defective electrical cable installed by Meadow Valley.
- Meadow Valley had purchased the electrical cable from either York Electrical Supply Co. (YESCO) or Tri-State Electrical Supply Company.
- The specific cable installed at the farm cannot be identified or distinguished as having been supplied by either YESCO or Tri-State.
Procedural Posture:
- Pennfield Corporation sued Meadow Valley Electric, Inc. in a Pennsylvania trial court, alleging its negligence caused the death of its swine.
- Meadow Valley filed a joinder complaint to add York Electrical Supply Co. (YESCO) and Tri-State Electrical Supply Company as additional defendants.
- YESCO filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing that Meadow Valley's complaint failed to state a claim because it could not identify which company supplied the allegedly defective product.
- The trial court sustained YESCO's preliminary objections and dismissed YESCO from the lawsuit with prejudice.
- Meadow Valley Electric, Inc., as appellant, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. YESCO is the appellee.
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 the alternative liability theory apply to shift the burden of proving causation to two potential product suppliers when the plaintiff cannot identify which one provided the defective product, and there is no allegation that both suppliers engaged in tortious conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Cavanaugh, Judge
No. The alternative liability theory does not apply because its essential predicate—that the conduct of all potential defendants was tortious—has not been met. The general rule is that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that a specific defendant's conduct caused the harm. The narrow exception of alternative liability, established in cases like Summers v. Tice and articulated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433(B)(3), is only available when a plaintiff proves that all defendants acted tortiously, making it unjust to allow them to escape liability simply because the plaintiff cannot pinpoint which one caused the specific injury. Here, Meadow Valley alleges that either YESCO or Tri-State supplied the defective cable, which necessarily means one of the two is an innocent party. The court explicitly rejected extending alternative liability or market share liability to situations where a potentially innocent party would be forced to disprove its culpability, finding such an approach 'pernicious' to established legal principles of causation. However, the court also found that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice, as Meadow Valley should be given the opportunity to amend its complaint to plead in the alternative and use discovery to attempt to identify the correct supplier.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict requirements for applying the alternative liability doctrine in Pennsylvania, confining it to cases where all potential defendants have engaged in wrongful conduct. It prevents the expansion of this burden-shifting framework into a general tool for plaintiffs who simply fail to identify a single tortfeasor from a group of potential actors, some of whom may be innocent. The ruling distinguishes between a failure to plead a viable legal theory (which was the case here with alternative liability) and a failure to plead sufficient facts, upholding the liberal policy of allowing amendments to pleadings. This maintains a clear boundary against holding potentially innocent parties liable while still providing plaintiffs a path forward through traditional pleading and discovery.
