Federal Court Rules that Contributory Negligence Defense Cannot Be Utilized in a Strict Liability Case

In the Cote v. Schnell Industries, No. 4:18-CV-01440 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2022 Brann, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part Motions In Limine filed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this strict products liability claim.

More specifically, the court excluded evidence of the Plaintiff’s contributory negligence, recklessness, or assumption of the risk where the product manufacturer Defendant could not show that the alleged product defects contributed in no way whatsoever to the accident and that the victim’s actions were therefore causally connected.

In this regard, Judge Brann noted that a products liability Defendant is not permitted to use contributory negligence concepts to excuse a product's defect or reduce recovery by comparing the fault of the parties in a strict liability case.  The exception is where the accident at issue was solely caused by a Plaintiff's negligence, which was not the case here.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 13, 2022).

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann of Middle District Addresses Admissibility of Alleged Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff in Products Case

In the case of Cote v. Schnell Industries, No. 4:18-CV--1440 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2022 Brann, J.), the court addressed several issues with respect to the admissibility of alleged misconduct by a Plaintiff in a products liability case.

According to the Opinion, this case involved a machine involved in a workplace accident that nearly severed the Plaintiff's hand.

The court noted that a Plaintiff’s comparative negligence is not admissible in a strict liability action, except as a superceding cause where the Plaintiff is the sole cause of the accident. The court otherwise noted that negligence that relates to the product itself cannot be a sole cause.

Here, the court found that the Plaintiff’s conduct in putting his hand in a dangerous position in the product relates to the product and was, therefore, inadmissible to be used against the Plaintiff.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s conduct is not relevant to the consumer expectation or risk-utility factors applicable to a products liability action because these tests to determine a product defect are concerned with the actions of an “ordinary” person, and not any particular Plaintiff.

However, the court did note that evidence of a Plaintiff’s voluntary assumption of the risks, misuse of a product, or highly reckless conduct is admissible to prove the issue of causation.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D. Pa.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann stated that, under Pennsylvania law, the assumption of the risk doctrine requires a knowing and voluntary exposure of oneself to a known risk. The court found that his assumption of the risk doctrine is inapplicable where a Plaintiff was required to use equipment provided by an employer.

Judge Brann additionally noted that product misuse and highly reckless conduct involve a Plaintiff’s unforeseeable, outrageous, and extraordinary use of a product. Whether a Plaintiff’s conduct meets this standard is for a jury to decide.

However, because a Plaintiff’s misuse and highly reckless conduct cannot be a sole cause of the accident, the court found the evidence of such conduct was inadmissible. 

On another issue before the Court, Judge Brann additionally noted that the Defendants could not use a Motion In Limine as a belated substitute for a Rule 702 motion relative to the competency of an expert’s opinion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


I thank Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Judge Williamson of Monroe County Finds that Transit Authority Had No Duty Where Plaintiff Assumed Risk of Injury

In another decision out of the case of Essington v. Monroe County Transit Auth., No. 5117-CV-2020 (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 15, 2022 Williamson, J.), the court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, Monroe County Transit Authority in a matter where a Plaintiff was injured after exiting a bus at a bus stop and being struck by an oncoming vehicle under nighttime conditions.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, Monroe County Transit Authority, was negligent relative to the selection of the location of the bus stop which was allegedly inherently dangerous.

The court applied the Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542.

Under the Sovereign Immunity Act, local governmental agencies are not liable for damages unless (1) the damages would be recoverable under common law, and (2) the injury was caused by a negligent act of the local government of its agent that fell within one of the enumerated exceptions to tort immunity. 

One of the exceptions under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542(b)(1) includes accidents caused by the operation of any motor vehicle.

The Plaintiff based their claims for a recovery based upon an allegation that the location of the bus stop was dangerous and that the harm to the Plaintiff was a foreseeable risk.

The court agreed that the stopping of the bus at the bus stop for passengers to disembark was part of the operation of the bus that was owned by the governmental agency.

However, the court found that, based upon the evidence presented, the acts or omissions by the Monroe County Transit Authority were not the proximate cause of the decedent’s harm. While the Defendant chose the location of the bus stop, that Defendant was not responsible for the narrow shoulder, the lack of guardrails, sidewalks, lights, bus shelters, or cut-a-ways in the roadway for passengers to the cross the street.

Rather, the road was owned by PennDOT and the Monroe County Transit Authority had no control over the conditions of the roadway.

The court also noted that the record before the court also showed the decedent was wearing dark clothing during this nighttime accident and was also wearing headphones plugged into his phone when he was crossing street. 

As such, the court found that the allegedly defective conditions at the site did not cause the Plaintiff’s death. The court noted that wider shoulders, guardrails, sidewalks, lighting, a bus shelter, or a road cut-a-way would not have protected the decedent from the accident. 

Rather, the court stated, the accident occurred, according to the facts gathered during discovery, because the decedent was distracted and crossed the road in front of an oncoming vehicle under nighttime conditions. The court also noted that there was no evidence that better lighting in the area would have prevented the accident.

The court also agreed with the Defendant, Monroe County Transit Authority, that the bus stop was generally safe. There was no prior notice of any other accidents at the stop or that the bus stop was dangerous in any way.

The court additionally noted that the decedent did not have to get off at this stop. There were a total of five (5) stops in the area where the Plaintiff had disembarked. As such, the court found that the decedent assumed the risk of getting off at this particular stop, when he could have gotten off at other stops. As such, the court found that any duty that the Defendant, Monroe County Transit Authority may have had in this matter was extinguished by the actions of the decedent and his assumption of the risk of his injury.

As such, for these multiple reasons, Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, Monroe County Transit Authority.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 3, 2022).

Source of image: Photo by Darren Viollet from www.pexels.com.

Motorists Involved in Accidents Required By Law To Move Their Vehicles Off the Roadway If Possible

In the case of Schmidt-Ramirez v. Burger, No. 9595-CV-2015 (C.P. Monroe Co. June 4, 2020 Williamson, J.), the court refused to grant a Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of contributory negligence in a motor vehicle accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was operating her vehicle under wintry conditions and allegedly lost control, which caused her vehicle to slide partially off the road. The Defendant driver then came along and slid on the same patch of ice that the Plaintiff had skidded on, and rear-ended the Plaintiff’s vehicle. 

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to prevent the Defendants from suggesting that the collision was the Plaintiff’s fault. 

Given that there were issues of fact, the court denied the motion filed by the Plaintiff. The court noted, in part, that the Plaintiff’s vehicle remained operable following the accident and that, under 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3745.1, it is required that the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident that does not result in apparent serious bodily injury or death shall immediately move the vehicle from the roadway to a safe place on the shoulder or some other area off the road.   The Court ruled that these issues should be left for the jury's consideration.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 28, 2020).

Motion To Dismiss Granted in Trip and Fall Case Due To Open and Obvious Condition

In the case of Moknach v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-261 (W.D. Pa. March 2, 2020 Baxter, J.), a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was granted in a premises liability matter.

After reviewing the facts before it, the court ruled that a Defendant landowner did not owe any duty to a Plaintiff business invitee to prevent her from tripping over a large sign stored on the outdoor patio of a casino which the Plaintiff and her husband frequented.  The sign was red and several feet in length.   

The court agreed with the defense that the object was an obvious hazard. The court reiterated the rule of law that a person must look where he or she is going. The court found that the Plaintiff had an obligation to observe her surroundings and did not. 

As such, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was granted. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Summary Judgment Denied in Fall Down Off of Fitting Platform in Store

Here's a Recipe for Disaster:

-Two high heels

-Pants that require hemming

-One Fitting Platform

In the case of Dorfmiester v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. 19-1958 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2019 Savage, U.S.D.J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case where the court found issues of fact as to whether or not the tripping hazard was known or obvious to the Plaintiff and/or whether the Defendant’s employees knew or should have known of the risk of injury.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff frequently shopped at the Nordstrom store and often had clothes fitted or altered, during which she was required to step on and off a fitting platform similar to the one involved in the subject incident.

On the date of the incident, the Plaintiff stepped onto the fitting platform. She was wearing pants that were touching the floor and required hemming.

The Plaintiff alleged that an employee instructed the Plaintiff to step back to get a better look at the pant length. However, the Plaintiff’s heel became tangled in the fabric of the pant leg, causing the Plaintiff to fall and fracture her ankle.

The Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the store and its employees were negligent in failing to warn the Plaintiff of the tripping hazard posed by an unhemmed pant leg and in failing to assist her on the fitting platform.

The defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that it had no duty to warn of or guard the Plaintiff from an obvious danger.

The court denied summary judgment finding genuine issues of material fact. The court noted that, although the defense asserted that the risk of stepping off of the platform in unhemmed pants while wearing heels was obvious to the Plaintiff in that she failed to exercise reasonable care and judgment for her own safety, a triable issue of fact was found as to whether the danger was known or obvious given the Plaintiff’s allegation that she was acting at the direction of the Defendant’s employee when she fell.

The court ruled that it was for the jury to decide whether the employee’s instructions to the Plaintiff created a false sense of security that interfered with the Plaintiff’s ability to appreciate the dangers of stepping down from the platform.

The court further ruled that there was an issue of fact as to whether the Defendant’s employees should have anticipated the danger to the Plaintiff given that the employees admitted that they did not think the pant length posed a tripping hazard and that the Plaintiff had never requested help in stepping down from the platform.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 10, 2019).

Pennsylvania Superior Court Finds that Defense Verdict in Trip and Fall Case Was Not Against the Weight of the Evidence

In its recent decision in the case of Koziar v. Rayner, 2018 Pa. Super. 331 (Pa. Super. Dec. 7, 2018 Strassburger, Stabile, and Stevens, J.) (Op. by Strassburger, J.), the court reversed a trial court’s decision granting the Plaintiff a new trial under a rationale that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence in a trip and fall case.  

The Superior court ruled that the jury’s verdict that the Defendant’s negligence was not the cause of the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries should not have been reversed by the trial court as against the weight of the evidence. The Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff gave several different versions of the accident such that the jury could have disbelieved the Plaintiff as to how the accident occurred.  

The Superior Court also noted that the jury could have believed that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the point that recovery was not permitted.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia offices of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention. 

Summary Judgment Granted Where Plaintiff Tripped in Supermarket Over Open and Obvious Pallet Stacked with Cases of Water

In the recent case of Walker v. Save-A-Lot, No. 18-CV-95 (E.D. Pa. June 12, 2018 DuBois, J.), summary judgment was granted in favor the defense in a case in which a Plaintiff fell over a pallet while stepping backwards.

According to the Opinion, the pallet was located in the middle of the aisle in the frozen foods section.  The Plaintiff walked towards the pallet and stopped her cart next to the pallet and went went to the door of the frozen foods section to grab a pizza.  As she then backed up, she tripped over the pallet.  The Plaintiff alleged that she never saw the pallet because she was focused on getting her pizza from the freezer unit.

The court found that, based upon the record before it, the pallet over which the Plaintiff tripped, was an open and obvious condition.  It was noted that the Plaintiff had walked past another pallet in the same aisle and that both pallets were stacked high with cases of water.  The court pointed to the well-settled law that landowners are not liable for injuries caused by known of obvious conditions.

Quoting the well-known case of Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120, 123 (Pa. 1983), the court in Walker stated that “[a] danger is deemed to be ‘obvious’ when ‘both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man, in the position of the visitor, exercising normal perception, intelligence, and judgment.’”

While the question of whether a danger is known and obvious is typically a jury question, the court noted that where, as here, no reasonable minds on a jury could disagree on a conclusion that the danger was known and obvious, the court could decide the issue on a summary judgment motion.

The court additionally noted that it is "hornbook law in Pennsylvania that a person must look where he is walking."  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks for Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith Law Firm in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention. 

Request for New Trial Denied Where Defendant Driver Found Negligent But Jury Found Causation Element Not Met in Fatal MVA Case

In the case of Steudler v. Keating, No. 8795 - CV - 2013 (C.P. Monroe Co. March 20, 2018 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson ruled that Plaintiffs were not entitled to a new trial based upon the jury’s failure to find causation even though it found the Defendant driver negligent in an auto accident case. 

The court ruled in this fashion after finding that it was possible for the jury to determine that the Defendant was negligent but that his negligence was not the factual cause of a fatal accident.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs, Erika Steudler and Victor Resto, were walking along a road in Monroe County when Resto was struck by a motor vehicle driven by the Defendant.  

The court noted that the accident occurred at night on a country back road with no street lighting.   Neither Plaintiff was carrying a flashlight at the time of the accident.  

Plaintiff Steudler did not see the accident but felt Resto brush against her the darkness when he was thrown in the air.  

Steudler filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking emotional damages due to witnessing the accident while Resto’s estate filed a wrongful death claim.

As noted, the matters proceeded to trial where the jury found the Defendant negligent but also found that his actions were not the factual cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries.  

In the post-trial motions, the Plaintiffs asserted that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and shocking to one’s sense of justice.   The Plaintiffs argued that, because the jury found that the Defendant was negligent, the jury should have found that he was also the factual cause of their injuries since it was undisputed that Resto died from the accident.  

The court ruled that a verdict is not against the weight of the evidence simply because the evidence at trial was conflicting or that a reasonable fact-finder could have decided the case in favor of either party.  

The trial court distinguished this case from the line of cases which suggest that when a Defendant is found negligent and both parties admit that there was some injury, then the Defendant must be found to have caused at least some portion of the injuries alleged.   Here, the court noted that the most distinguishable factor between that line of cases and this case was the issue of the Plaintiffs’ contributory negligence.   The court noted that, in the line of cases cited the Plaintiffs, the Defendants had admitted negligence and there was no difference in opinion that the Defendants’ negligence had caused those accidents, which cause some personal injury.  

In the Steudler matter, the Defendant never admitted negligence and there were claims of contributory negligence pursued.   The defense argued that the sole cause of the accident was the Plaintiffs’ own acts or omissions.   It was the Defendant’s defense that he operated his vehicle within the posted speed limit, stayed within his lane of travel, and never saw the Plaintiffs prior to the impact.  

The court also noted that the parties presented experts with different opinions on the theory of the cause of the accident in this matter.

In the end, the court found that the jury’s verdict in this matter could have been based upon the jury’s belief that Resto was in the roadway, together with Steudler, and that, if he was not, he may not have been struck and killed. 

As such, the court denied the Plaintiff’s request for a new trial under the case presented.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 10, 2018).