According to the Opinion, the case arose out of a rider mower accident in which a grandmother accidentally ran over her 7 year old grandson who had come into the yard and slipped on the grass behind her. The Plaintiff alleged that the mower lacked appropriate rear guarding and was negligently designed such that the blades remained engaged even when the tractor was in reverse. The minor’s lower leg eventually had to be amputated.
On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that the trial court erred by not reviewing certain expert reports offered by the Plaintiff which were attached to the Plaintiff’s Brief which were filed of record.
The Superior Court, citing Pa. R.C.P. 1035.1, confirmed in its Opinion that the Rules of Civil Procedure define “record” for purposes of summary judgment as including pleadings, depositions, Answers to Interrogatories, admissions and affidavits, and reports signed by an expert witness that would, “if filed,” comply with Rule 4003.5(a)(1), whether or not the reports have been produced in response to Interrogatories
The court noted that the language of the rule suggest that expert reports need only be submitted to the court, not filed, in order to be considered in Motion for Summary Judgment proceedings.
As such, the appellate court noted that the trial court should have considered the Plaintiff’s expert report, which would have created issues of fact for the jury’s resolution.
In this decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court also provided a thorough recitation of the current status of products liability law in Pennsylvania, including the law as altered by the case of Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014). In reviewing that law, the court reiterated that there were indeed issues of fact that needed to be decided by a jury.
As such, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was overruled.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.