Sullivan, M. v. Werner Company
253 A.3d 730, 2021 PA Super 66 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability action in Pennsylvania, evidence of a manufacturer's compliance with industry or government safety standards is inadmissible to prove that a product is not defective. The focus of the inquiry is on the safety of the product itself, not the reasonableness of the manufacturer's conduct.
Facts:
- On June 26, 2015, Michael Sullivan, a union carpenter, was working at an elementary school renovation site.
- Sullivan retrieved a new Werner SRS-72 rolling scaffold, purchased by his foreman from a Lowe's store.
- As an experienced carpenter, Sullivan assembled the scaffold with his apprentice, Michael Bentzley, according to the instructions, ensuring the platform was seated and the deck pins were engaged to secure it.
- Sullivan used the scaffold to install exterior sheathing, which required him to climb on and off the platform, and roll the scaffold to new positions several times.
- After successfully installing two pieces of sheathing, Sullivan climbed back onto the platform to install a third piece.
- While he was working on the third piece, the scaffold's platform collapsed beneath him like a 'trapdoor,' causing him to fall to the ground.
- Sullivan suffered permanent injuries, including a fractured sacrum and injured lumbar vertebrae, which prevented him from returning to his job as a carpenter.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael and Melissa Sullivan sued Werner Company and Lowe's Companies, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, a state trial court.
- Sullivan filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the manufacturer's compliance with industry standards, which the trial court granted.
- The trial court also denied Manufacturer's motions to preclude Sullivan's expert testimony and ruled that Manufacturer could not argue Sullivan's own negligence was the sole cause of the accident.
- A jury found in favor of Sullivan on his design defect claim and awarded him $2.5 million in damages.
- The trial court denied Manufacturer's motion for post-trial relief and entered judgment.
- Manufacturer, as the Appellant, appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a strict products liability action, is evidence of a manufacturer's compliance with industry safety standards admissible to prove a product is not defective?
Opinions:
Majority - Pellegrini, J.
No. In a strict products liability action, evidence that a manufacturer complied with industry standards is not admissible to prove a product is not defective. The court reasoned that Pennsylvania's strict liability law, rooted in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, focuses on the condition of the product, not the manufacturer's conduct. The pre-existing rule from Lewis v. Coffing Hoist established that such evidence improperly shifts the jury's focus from the product's safety to the reasonableness of the manufacturer's design choice, which is a negligence concept. While Tincher v. Omega Flex overruled the rigid separation between negligence and strict liability established in Azzarello, it did not explicitly or implicitly overrule Lewis. The court found that Section 402A(2)(a), which imposes liability even if a seller has exercised 'all possible care,' provides a continuing justification for excluding evidence of industry standards, as such evidence merely speaks to the level of care taken by the manufacturer, which is irrelevant in a strict liability analysis.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies a significant evidentiary rule in Pennsylvania products liability law following the landmark Tincher decision. It solidifies the position that despite Tincher's allowance for some negligence-based concepts (like the risk-utility test), the core of a strict liability claim remains focused on the product's safety, not the manufacturer's conduct. The ruling provides clear guidance to trial courts and practitioners that the prohibition on admitting industry standards evidence remains in effect, maintaining a distinct feature of Pennsylvania law that is more favorable to plaintiffs than the approach in many other jurisdictions or under the Restatement (Third). This holding also resolves uncertainty created by conflicting federal court interpretations of Tincher on this issue.
Unlock the full brief for Sullivan, M. v. Werner Company