Reynolds Alley v. MTD Products Inc
NOT PRECEDENTIAL (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a choice-of-law analysis involving a true conflict, Pennsylvania applies the law of the forum state if applying the foreign state's law would frustrate the forum's public policy, especially when the plaintiff is a forum resident injured within the forum by a product purchased and used there.
Facts:
- MTD, a company headquartered with its principal place of business in Ohio, designed, engineered, and tested a snow thrower in Ohio.
- Reynolds Alley, a resident of Pennsylvania, purchased the MTD-manufactured snow thrower in Pennsylvania from a third-party retailer.
- Alley exclusively used the snow thrower in Pennsylvania.
- While Alley was using the snow thrower in Pennsylvania, its tire rim failed and burst, causing him to sustain hand injuries.
- Alley was treated for his injuries in Pennsylvania.
Procedural Posture:
- Reynolds Alley sued MTD in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging strict liability and negligence.
- Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Alley.
- MTD filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Ohio's statute of repose barred Alley's claims.
- The District Court denied MTD's motion.
- MTD, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's denial of its motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with Alley as 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 Pennsylvania's choice-of-law analysis require the application of Ohio's ten-year statute of repose to bar a product liability claim brought by a Pennsylvania resident who was injured in Pennsylvania by a product designed in Ohio?
Opinions:
Majority - Beetlestone, District Judge
No. Pennsylvania's choice-of-law analysis does not require applying Ohio's statute of repose. To resolve a true conflict, Pennsylvania courts conduct a qualitative analysis of each state's contacts and governmental interests to determine which state has the most significant relationship to the dispute. While Ohio has contacts through MTD's headquarters and the product's design, Pennsylvania's contacts are more significant: the plaintiff's residence, the place of purchase and use, the situs of the injury, and the location of medical treatment. The place of injury is not fortuitous and thus carries great weight. Pennsylvania has a strong interest in compensating its injured residents, and its lack of a statute of repose for product liability is a purposeful policy choice, not mere inaction. Because applying Ohio's law would frustrate Pennsylvania's policy of providing a remedy for its injured citizens, and because MTD, as a national manufacturer, could not justifiably expect Ohio law to apply everywhere, Pennsylvania law governs.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that in Pennsylvania tort choice-of-law cases, the place of injury to a resident plaintiff is a highly significant contact that is often determinative when it is not fortuitous. It clarifies that a state's deliberate decision not to enact a law, such as a statute of repose, represents a strong public policy interest equal to another state's decision to enact one. The ruling solidifies the presumption in favor of applying forum law in a true conflict scenario where doing otherwise would undermine the forum's interests, thereby providing greater protection for resident plaintiffs against out-of-state manufacturers.
