Third Circuit Addresses Strict Liability Claims in Alleged Food Poisoning Case

In its unpublished decision in the case of Kovalev v. Lidl US, LLC, No. 24-3224 (3rd Cir. Nov. 12, 2025 Hardiman, J., Matey, J., Chung, J.) (per curiam) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed the entry of summary judgment and other motions after finding that the thirty (30) day removal to federal court deadline begins when the Defendant learns that the case is indeed removable.

According to the record before this court, the Plaintiff had made a demand in excess of the diversity jurisdictional amount.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff claimed food poisoning from eating bread from a loaf of bread he had purchased.   

The court otherwise noted that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged defective condition existed at the time of the sale, thereby precluding any strict liability claims. The court also found that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to support the allegation that the alleged defect caused his claimed injuries.

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


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

Superior Court Addresses Crashworthiness Doctrine

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Amagasu v. Fred Beans Family of Dealerships, No. 1594 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Dec. 22, 2025 Olson, J., Dubow, J., and Beck, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a one billion dollar jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs in a products liability case.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a motor vehicle accident. In this product liability case against Mitsubishi, the Plaintiffs allege, in part, that the seat belt system and the low roof configuration of the vehicle, and other related structures were defective.

In its Opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held, in part, that the trial court had erroneously instructed the jurors to apply a wrong legal standard, resulting in a verdict that was reached by the jury under an improperly reduced burden of proof.

The Superior Court noted that the jurors at the trial should have been instructed to apply the “crashworthiness” doctrine. This standard holds a vehicle manufacturer liable for injuries caused by design defects in their vehicles during accidents.

In this matter, the jurors were instead instructed to apply a general strict liability standard which had a lower burden of proof.

Accordingly, the Superior Court agreed with the defense argument that the trial court abused its discretion in electing to given only a traditional Section 402A strict products liability instruction.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Kenneth T. Newman of the Pittsburgh office of the Thomas Thomas & & Hafer, LLP law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Trial Court Denies Summary Judgment on Products Liability Claims Regarding Motorcycle

In the case of Windhorst v. Colvin, No. 11230 of 2019, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. June 27, 2025 Hodge, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Harley Davidson Motor Company, after finding issues of fact in this products liability case arising out of a motorcycle accident.

In this matter, the Plaintiff alleged a designed defect in the lighting system of the motorcycle. 

One defense presented by the Defendants was that the Plaintiff had substantially altered the lighting system on the motorcycle prior to the accident. More specifically, there was evidence in the record that the Plaintiff had installed an after market LED headlamp on the motorcycle in an effort to improve the headlamp’s brightness. 

The record before the court confirmed that the Plaintiff took this step without following the specifications or alignment instructions in the owner’s manual for the motorcycle that was provided by the Defendants. It was also noted that the owner’s manual expressly warned against the use of non-specified parts and also outlined the appropriate wattage for headlamps.

The Defendants additionally contended that the Plaintiff’s claims for a negligent design and for strict product liability were legally insufficient as the subject motorcycle complied with all federal and state conspicuity regulations in terms pf head lamps. 

The Defendant additionally argued that, in any event, the Plaintiff was aware of the alleged design defect and assumed the risk by continuing to operate the motorcycle.

The court denied the Motion after finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether there was an alleged design defect in the motorcycle’s lighting system. The court also found genuine issues of material fact on the issue of whether the Plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury.

The court noted that both parties had produced conflicting evidence on the issue presented through expert reports on the issues of whether or not a design defect existed.

The court additionally noted that, while compliance with government standards is relevant to a claim for negligent design, such evidence is not determinative in cases of strict product liability regarding allegations of defects.

Accordingly, the judge denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 18, 2025).

Federal Court Addresses Scope of Permissible Liability Expert Testimony in a Products Liability Case

In the case of Borden v. Mainline Conveyor Systems, Inc., No. 4:23-CV-01486 (M.D. Pa. July 21, 2025 Mehalchick, J.), the court addressed Motions In Limine filed by a Plaintiff in a products liability case that sought, in part, to preclude certain testimony by a defense engineering expert.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was working for a container company when he stepped on a mesh belt conveyor that activated and threw him off, resulting in injuries. 

The Plaintiff sued the conveyor belt manufacturer, claiming that the company was strictly liable for manufacturing a defective and unreasonably dangerous device.

The court otherwise rejected the Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine to preclude the defense from pursuing an assumption of risk defense. 

Here, the court found that there were issues of fact regarding whether or not the Plaintiff was required by his employer to walk over the conveyor belt and whether the Plaintiff was aware of the risk that the conveyor belt would be inadvertently activated. Given these issues of fact, the defense was permitted to proceed with its assumption of the risk defense.

In her Opinion, Judge Mehalchick limited the Defendant’s liability expert’s opinion and ruled that the defense expert would not be permitted to testify regarding the import of a contract between certain parties relative to the machine at issue, in terms of which company was responsible for certain actions. The court found that such testimony would be impermissible interpretation of a contract by the expert rather than the offering of an opinion on customs and practices within the conveyor manufacturing industry.

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


Source: Article: “Engineering Expert’s Testimony Improperly Waded Into Contract, Pa. Fed. Judge Rules In Products Liability Dispute,” By Riley Brennan of the Legal Intelligencer (July 21, 2025).

Court Denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in a Case Involving a Plaintiff from a Foreign Country

In the case of Charles v. QVC, Inc., No. 24-6703 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2025 Savage, J.), the court denied a Motion to Dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a case involving a jurisdictional and/or venue issues in a case involving a Plaintiff who was a resident of a foreign country and who was injured in her home country of Trinidad.

This matter arose out of an incident during which a pressure cooker that the Plaintiff had purchased exploded while the Plaintiff was using it.    

The foreign Plaintiff brought suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on a products liability claim relative to a product made in America. Even though the product was not manufactured in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania based employee made media representations about the product by marketing it from its Pennsylvania studios. The court additionally noted that one of the Defendants had a principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

The court noted that, although the Plaintiff’s foreign country was an adequate forum for the litigation of his personal injury matter, a foreign Plaintiff can support her choice of forum by making a strong showing of convenience.

The court in this matter noted that the connection of this matter to Pennsylvania established the convenience element in this matter.

More specifically, the court noted that none of the evidence located in the Plaintiff’s home country was critical for the litigation of the claim.

The court additionally noted that, as for the witnesses based in the United States within the Defendants’ control, it would be significantly more convenient for those witnesses to travel to a trial in the United States rather than going abroad to a foreign country.

Notably, the court also emphasized, on the issue of convenience, that the depositions of any relevant witnesses could be conducted remotely.

The court also found that the completion of a trial in the United States would be more convenient to all of the parties interested.

Lastly, the court emphasized that Pennsylvania has an interest in the safety of products introduced into the stream of commerce from Pennsylvania.

The court in this matter ruled, after careful consideration of the private and public interest factors, that litigating this case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania would not result in oppression and vexation to the defendants out of all proportion to the Plaintiff's convenience. As such, the court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss this action on forum non conveniens grounds.

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


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.

Court Addresses Admissibility of Expert Opinions

In the case of Twigg v. Varsity Brands Holding Co., No. 4:23-CV-00067 (M.D. Pa. March 7, 2025 Brann, C.J.), the court provided the latest pronouncement on the Rules of Admissibility for an expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

This products liability case arose out of an accident during which a baseball coach was struck by a batted ball that went through an L-screen net while he was pitching batting practice.

In his decision in this case Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann granted in part and denied in part Rule 702 motions regarding experts in the case. In so ruling, the court noted the following principles of law.

An expert’s lack of technical background does not render an expert unqualified where that expert has sufficient practical experience.

The court also ruled that an expert need not have familiarity with a product in order to evaluate the adequacy of a manufacturer’s testing protocols.

The court also noted that an expert may rely solely upon material provided to the expert by counsel. However, that expert is not permitted to rely upon material that has not been disclosed to the opposing party.

The court also reaffirmed the rule that an expert may not testify about matters outside the scope of their opinions.

The court also noted that experts may assume the truth of the contested facts asserted by the parties who hired them. The weight of such opinions depends on how the jury ultimately views the underlying facts.

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


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

What Constitutes The "Record" To Be Reviewed On Summary Judgment?

In the case of L.T. v. Kubota Manufacturing, No. 1310 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Feb. 14, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Supeiror court overruled a trial court’s entry of summary judgment in a products liability case.

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.

Western District Federal Court of Pennsylvania Addresses Products Liability Claims In a Prescription Medical Device Litigation

In the case of Blair v. Abbvie, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-1871 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2025 Ranjan, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss in a prescription medical device litigation.

In this decision, the Western Federal District Court confirmed that Pennsylvania’s across-the-board application of the Restatement §402A, comment k, as precluding strict liability design defect claims, but not strict liability manufacturing defect claims.

The court also ruled that, similarly, given that the elements of implied warranty claims are identical to strict liability claims, the Plaintiff’s implied warranty claims were dismissed.

The court also ruled in this case that the manufacturing defect claims asseted by the Plaintiff were inadequately pled because the claims did not reveal either any specific problem with the device or how the device allegedly failed. The court noted that the availability of a malfunction theory manufacturing defect claim does not exclude excuse failure to plead the circumstances of the alleged malfunction.

The court also ruled that the negligent design and warning claims were inadequately pled because the Plaintiff did not identify the design defect, anything about the manufacturing process, or what information should have been given to his medical providers.

Based on these issues, the trial court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

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.

Federal Court Addresses Products Liability Claims Involving a Medical Device

In the case of Ford v. St. Jude Medical, LLC, No. 3:21-CV-01765 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2024 Mehalchick, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

The case involved allegations that the Plaintiff fell when his pacemaker device failed.  

The court ruled that Pennsylvania law does not permit strict liability claims in prescription medical product liability litigation against medical device manufacturers. This prohibition includes strict liability design and manufacturing claims.

Judge Mehalchick additionally ruled that the Plaintiff’s claims of an implied warranty based upon different or additional Pennsylvania medical device standards were preempted. The court additionally noted that, even if these claims were not preempted, such claims would also be barred by the Restatement of Torts (Second) §402a, comment k.

Judge Mehalchick additionally ruled that a loss of consortium claim cannot be based on a contractual claim for breach of an express warranty.

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


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

Federal Court Addresses Viability of Products Liability Claims Involving Medical Devices

In the case of Douglas v. Atrium Medical Corp., No. 3:23-CV-747-JKM (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2024 Munley, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss after finding that settled Pennsylvania law did not allow for strict liability claims in a products liability litigation relative to claims involving prescription drugs and medical devices.

The case arose out of issues regarding the use of a hernia mesh as treatment.   

Judge Munley also denied the request for a certification of the strict liability issues for an interlocutory appeal because there was no substantial ground for a difference of opinion on this decision.

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 Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Souce of image:  Photo by Vidatl Balielo, Jr. on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Porsche Due to Failure of Plaintiff's Expert Testimony

In the case of Riad v. Porsche Cars M.A. Inc., No. 18-5175-KSM (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2024 Marston, J.), the court granted summary judgment to the defense in a products liability action.

The court noted that the Plaintiff failed to prove causation, which is necessary element in a products liability action. The court additionally noted that causation requires expert testimony where the issues are medically complex and such testimony must be to a reasonable degree of medical certainty in order to be admissible.

In this case, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s expert denied having any opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The court noted that testimony using phrases like “likely” or referring to “possibilities” do not equate to testimony to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Given that the Plaintiff was found to be without admissible causation evidence, the Defendant was granted summary judgment.

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

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

Evidence of Compliance With Industry Safety Standards Not Admissible in Products Cases

Back in December of 2023, in the case of Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 18 EAP 2022 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2023) (Op. by Mundy, J.) (concurring Op. by Justice Donohue) (dissenting Opinion Todd J., jointed by Brobson, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that evidence of a product’s compliance with industry and governmental safety standards remains inadmissible following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 368 (Pa. 2014).

Anyone wishing to review the decision in this case may click this LINK.

Justice Donohue's Concurring Opinion can be viewed .

Chief Justice Todd's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE. 

Trial Court Requests Superior Court To Reverse Trial Court's Own Venue Ruling

In the case of Martinez v. Elsner Engineering Works, Inc., No. 230102505 (C.P. Phila. Co. Feb. 15, 2024 Anders, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in which it requested the Superior Court to reverse the trial court’s previous ruling that sustained a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections as to venue and transferred the case from Philadelphia County to York County. 

The trial court noted that, in this case, the Plaintiff sued multiple Defendants in Philadelphia County for personal injuries allegedly caused by a defective industrial product/equipment.

The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that one (1) Defendant designed, manufactured and sold the industrial equipment in Philadelphia County and that another Defendant was a successor-in-interest to the manufacturer.

The successor-in-interest Defendant filed Preliminary Objections and asserted that Philaelphia County was an improper venue.  In its original decision, the trial court agreed and ordered that the case be transferred to York County.

With this Opinion, the trial court concluded that, upon further review of the matter, its Order should be reversed and that Philadelphia should be found to be a proper venue for the case because a transaction or occurrence took place in Philadelphia County out of which the Plaintiff’s cause of action arose. More specifically, the Plaintiff had alleged that the original equipment manufacturer had defectively designed, manufactured, and sold the disputed equipment in Philadelphia County.

The trial court noted that it had reviewed additional case law authority that offered guidance as to whether proper venue in a particular county existed based upon business activity of a predecessor corporation of a current defendant in a matter. In that regard, the court found that a predecessor corporation’s activities could be attributed to its successor for purposes of a determination of proper jurisdiction.

As such, the trial court was now concluding that Philadelphia County was a proper venue in light of the Plaintiff’s allegations that the Defendant at issue was a successor-in-interest of the original equipment manufacturer.  The trial court, therefore, requested the Superior Court it reverse the trial court's prior decision.

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


Source: Law.com, “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” (June 5, 2024).

Source of image: Photo by Nick Fewings on www.pexels.com.

Crashworthiness Test Applied to Golf Cart in Accident Case

In the case of Suisi v. JH Global Services, Inc., No. 10604-2015, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Jan. 23, 2024 Hodge, J.), the court addressed issues arising out of injuries sustained by a Plaintiff during a golf cart accident.

According to the Opinion, the golf cart was designed by Defendant, JH Global, and sold to a licensed dealer. Prior to its sale, the golf cart was modified by the dealer with a lift kit designed and sold by another Defendant.

In this matter, the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the manufacturer of the golf cart. 

According to the Opinion, the accident occurred when the Plaintiff was driving the golf cart on a roadway when the components of the steering mechanism, which were altered by the lift kit, failed.  The Plaintiff crashed and the Plaintiff was thrown approximately thirty (30) feet from the golf cart.

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that there was allegedly no support for a claim against JH Global as the designer of product that was impermissibly altered by a dealer and where the designer’s original parts were not the parts that failed during the course of the accident.

The Plaintiffs also subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the record should demonstrate that the Defendants should have had knowledge that their carts were being modified and sold by their dealers that the Defendant designer did not adequately monitor and reprimand those actions, and that there was no sufficient warning within the warranty itself to convey the dangerous potential results of those modifications. The Plaintiff additionally asserted that the design of the cart invited modifications without appropriate safety mechanisms.

The court applied a 3-factor test for a defective design claim: whether a product could be designed to be safer, whether a design failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, and if the designed caused the injury, whether the Plaintiff could demonstrate that a challenged feature outweighs the risk inherent in the design.

The court also applied the crash worthiness of a motor vehicle test to the golf cart as a matter of first impression. 

In this regard, the court noted that the crash worthiness of a motor vehicle test required the Plaintiff to prove (1) that the design was defective and that an alternative, safer and practical design existed and could have been incorporated at that time, (2) the injuries the Plaintiff would have received had the alternative design been used, and (3) what injuries were attributable to the defective design.

Here, the court found that the Plaintiff could not identify or offer an available alternative cart design that would have prevented the Plaintiff’s injuries. The alleged defect was that the cart enabled modifications that it was constructed to handle. The court noted that he Defendant’s warranty instructions said that the cart should not be modified.

The court found that a design that permitted modification of a catastrophically flawed lift kit was unintended and unforeseeable. As such, the court found that the Defendant was not responsible for manfuracturing each golf cart to withstand modifications and noted that the Defendant made a golf cart with additional safety measures when it is lifted, but the original purchaser did not buy that model.

As such, the court found that the design defects alleged by the Plaintiff were without merit.

On the claim of an inadequate warning of the possible consequences of modifying the golf cart, the court stated that the Plaintiff was required to provide proof that the lack of warning rendered the cart unreasonably dangerous and that it was approximate cause of the injury. The court denied summary judgment on the failure to warn claim, finding that this claim presented issues to be resolved by the jury.

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


Source: Law.com: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” (May 8, 2024).\

Source of image:  Photo by Cristina Ann Costello from www.Pexels.com.

Federal Court Rules that Plaintiff Must Plausibly Identify the Seller of the Product in the Complaint

In the case of McKnight v. Amazon.Com Inc., No. 23-1449 (E.D. Pa. May 14, 2024 Pratter, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss.

The case arose out of a claim that the Plaintiff allegedly suffered injuries from using a mole cream on his scalp.

The late Judge Pratter noted that, in reading the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Plaintiff purchased the mole removal cream from Amazon.com or, if not Amazon, then Wal-Mart, or Target, or eBay.  

In this products liability case, the court found that the Plaintiff could not validly allege that he bought the same item from four (4) different manufacturers.

The court found that the claims against the lead Defendant were barely plausible since the Complaint alleged that various Defendants delivered the product.

As to the other three (3) alleged sellers, the court found that no proper facts were pled. The court stated that an allegation of “more likely than not” is not an allegation of a fact.

The federal district court reaffirmed the rule of products liability cases that a Plaintiff must identify the maker of the allegedly defective product in the pleadings.  Any alternative pleadings must still meet the general plausibility standards.

This decision is also notable for the fact that the court ruled that Pennsylvania law does not recognize a duty to recall or retrofit products. As such, the recall-related allegations in the Complaint were stricken.

In this decision, the federal court also noted that there is no separate cause of action for recklessness under Pennsylvania law.  The Complaint included a claim of "Negligence and Recklessness."  The Court noted that there is no cause of action for Recklessness in and of itself under Pennsylvania law.

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

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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Evidence of a Product's Compliance With Industry Safety Standards Is Not Admissible in a Strict Liability Design Defect Case

In another notable victory for the Plaintiff's bar at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court level, that Court, in the case of Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 18 EAP (Pa. Dec. 22, 2023) (Op. by Mundy, J.), addressed the issue of whether evidence of a product’s compliance with industry and government safety standards is admissible in a strict liability case following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s previous decision in the case of Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that such compliance evidence is inadmissible in this context. 

This case arose out of a collapse of a mobile scaffold. The Plaintiffs complained that the scaffold was defectively designed.

In the case below, the trial court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude the Defendants from adding into evidence any industry or governmental standards with regards to the scaffolding. After a verdict was entered in favor of the Plaintiff, this appeal followed and went up the appellate ladder.

In the Sullivan case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that evidence of a product’s compliance with governmental regulations or industry standards is inadmissible in a strict liability design defect case to show that a product is not defective under the risk-utility theory because such evidence goes to the reasonableness of the manufacturer's conduct in making its design choice, not to the issue of whether the product was defectively designed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion in this decision may click this LINK.

The Concurring Opinion by Justice Donohue can be viewed HERE.

The Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Todd can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Kenneth T. Newman of the Pittsburgh office of Thomas Thomas & Hafer for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Darya Sannikova on www.pexels.com.

Issues of Fact Allow Strict Liability Case Involving Ladder to Proceed Forward

In the case of Kallok v. Wing Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00805-PLD (W.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2023 Dodge, M.J.), a federal magistrate judge denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a Plaintiff’s strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty action over a collapsed ladder.

The court found that the Plaintiff’s liability expert’s testimony was sufficiently reliable and created genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not the ladder was defective at the time of sale, whether the Defendant’s quality control procedures met the expected standard of care, and as to how the ladder was set up.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 5, 2023).

Flea Market Not a Seller for Purposes of Products Liability Case

In the case of Liebig v. MTD Products, Inc., No. 22-4427 (E.D. Pa. May 25, 2023 Murphy, J.), the court denied a Motion to Remand in a products liability case.

The court reasoned that the Plaintiff’s alleged products liability claims against a non-diverse Pennsylvania flea market were not colorable such that a finding that that Defendant was fraudulently joined was appropriate.

In this case, the product was apparently purchased at a flea market.

The court noted that a flea market is not a seller of a product as that term is defined in the products liability context. Rather, flea markets are markets that merely provide space for third parties to sell ordinary household items to each other. Flea markets are not to be considered manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of products under the contexts of product liability case.

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


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.

Source of image:  Photo by Clem Onojeghuo on www.unsplash.com.

Philadelphia County Court Transfers Venue of Products Liability Case to Bucks County

In the case of Watson v. Baby Trend, Inc., Aug. Term 2021, Case No. 210802189 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 16, 2022 Cohen, J.), the court filed a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s granting of a Defendant corporation’s Preliminary Objections asserting improper venue in Philadelphia County.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff filed this products liability lawsuit alleging that their 11 month old child died while in a car seat manufactured by the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in Philadelphia County. The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint and sought to transfer venue from Philadelphia County to Bucks County.

After allowing for discovery on the issue, the court sustained the Preliminary Objections and issued and Order transferring the case to Bucks County. 

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal, which prompted the trial court to issue this Rule 1925 Opinion. In this Opinion, the court in Watson stated that, while a Plaintiff’s choice of forum is to be given great weight, that choice is not absolute. The court noted that, under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 2179, personal injury action against the corporation or a similar entity may be brought in a county where that Defendant regularly conducts business.

Under the applicable law, when determining whether venue is proper in this type of case against a corporation, the courts are required to apply a quality/quantity analysis.

After reviewing the record, the court noted that the Defendant’s direct to consumer sales in Philadelphia represented just .0018% of the company’s total 2021 sales and that the company otherwise sold their product through big box retailers such as Target, Wal-Mart, and Amazon.

The court found that the Defendant corporation did not otherwise have any direct connection with Philadelphia County and did not maintain any places of business in the city or even in the state of Pennsylvania. It was additionally noted that the company did not buy any products or material from any Pennsylvania vendors.

According to the trial court, the company’s activities within Philadelphia failed to meet both the quality and quantity prongs of the venue analysis. Consequently, the court found that venue was not proper in its jurisdiction.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 28, 2023).

Venue of Products Liability Case Transferred From Eastern District to Middle District

In the case of Twigg v. Varsity Brands Holding Co., Inc., No. 21-CV-00768 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2023 Goldberg, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Plaintiff’s products liability action from the Eastern Federal District Court of Pennsylvania and out of the Middle Federal District Court of Pennsylvania.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a teacher and coach who was throwing indoor batting practice from behind an L-screen that was covered with safety netting. A hit ball ripped through the safety netting, hitting the Plaintiff in the eye and causing permanent damages.

The Plaintiff brought strict liability claims against the Defendant and filed a suit in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff’s main argument for filing in that county was that a majority of the Plaintiff’s treating doctors and nurses were allegedly located within that district.

After reviewing the record before it, the Eastern District Judge Goldberg ruled that the Defendants had demonstrated that the case could have been brought in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and that the balancing of the factors required under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) and the Jumara case weighed in favor of the transfer of the case from the Eastern District to the Middle District.

The court found that venue was proper in the Middle District because the injury occurred in a county located within that district. The court otherwise found that the convenience of the party’s factor was neutral and that more witnesses were actually located in the Middle District.

The court also noted that the allegedly defective product was sold to a public school in the Middle District for use by its students and employees and that the case was, therefore, fairly characterized as a localized controversy within the Middle District Federal Court jurisdiction of Pennsylvania. As such, the Defendant’s Motion to Transfer was granted.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 28, 2023).