design defect claim in Pennsylvania

2019Cyanamid Co., 715 A.2d 967 (N.J. 1998).

2017However, while the High brothers have suggested that they are raising a design defect claim, the High brothers’ argument is centered on their assertion that the concrete was defective because Pennsy Supply failed to warn them of the concrete’s potential to cause third degree burns.2 The ____________________________________________ 2 We note that the Supreme Court granted allocatur in Amato v. Bell & Gossett, ___Pa.___, 130 A.3d 1283 (Pa. February 1, 2016) to decide (Footnote Continued Next Page) -9- J-A25035-16 trial court does not clarify this distinction in granting summary judgment.

2016Id. (quoting Trial Court Notes of Testimony, 77, Sept. 25, 2000). 37 Circulated 12/07/2015 09:49 AM Furthermore, as we have noted, advancing both a design defect claim and a malfunction claim based on only on.e set of circumstances, let alone two, is not prohibited in a products liability I J action.

2016See Ra.rkin, 837 A.2d 518 (plaintiff averred that the· scat of her 1989 Ford Escort malfunctioned when it broke loose after a rear-end collision, thereby prompting the trial court to instruct on both the malfunction and crashworthiness doctrines); Hanh v. PetroU, 840 A.2d 404 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (allowing plaintiff to advance both a specific design defect claim under the crashwortbincss doctrine and a malfunction claim"'), appeal denied in parl, 864 A.2d 531 (Pa. 2004), ajf din part, 887 A.2d 209 (Pa. 2005).

2016Specifically, Ford contends that (1) "[t]hcre was legally insufficient evidence" to sustain the Cancelleris' design defect claim under the crashworth.ioess doctrine, Def.'s Post-Trial Motion, ~ 45; (2) the Cancellezis' preservation of the Sable and advancement of a design defect claim renders the malfunction theory inapplicable, Id. at 1 67; 1~ 71-74; (3) even if the malfunction theory were applicable, the Cancelleris "presented insufficient evidence of mal..fuoction and causation to support a malfunction theory jury charge," Id. at if 81; and (4) Rosetta Cancelleri.'s "loss of consortium clai

2016Specifically, Ford contends that (1) "[t]hcre was legally insufficient evidence" to sustain the Cancelleris' design defect claim under the crashworth.ioess doctrine, Def.'s Post-Trial Motion, ~ 45; (2) the Cancellezis' preservation of the Sable and advancement of a design defect claim renders the malfunction theory inapplicable, Id. at 1 67; 1~ 71-74; (3) even if the malfunction theory were applicable, the Cancelleris "presented insufficient evidence of mal..fuoction and causation to support a malfunction theory jury charge," Id. at if 81; and (4) Rosetta Cancelleri.'s "loss of consortium clai

2016See Ra.rkin, 837 A.2d 518 (plaintiff averred that the· scat of her 1989 Ford Escort malfunctioned when it broke loose after a rear-end collision, thereby prompting the trial court to instruct on both the malfunction and crashworthiness doctrines); Hanh v. PetroU, 840 A.2d 404 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (allowing plaintiff to advance both a specific design defect claim under the crashwortbincss doctrine and a malfunction claim"'), appeal denied in parl, 864 A.2d 531 (Pa. 2004), ajf din part, 887 A.2d 209 (Pa. 2005).

2016See Ra.rkin, 837 A.2d 518 (plaintiff averred that the· scat of her 1989 Ford Escort malfunctioned when it broke loose after a rear-end collision, thereby prompting the trial court to instruct on both the malfunction and crashworthiness doctrines); Hanh v. PetroU, 840 A.2d 404 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (allowing plaintiff to advance both a specific design defect claim under the crashwortbincss doctrine and a malfunction claim"'), appeal denied in parl, 864 A.2d 531 (Pa. 2004), ajf din part, 887 A.2d 209 (Pa. 2005).

2016In such a case, the jury is permitted to find that the product in question was both defectively designed and that it malfunctioned See Bh,mtr, 20 A.3d 122213 ; Harsh, 840 A.2d 404 .14 After all, the most important inquiry in a strict products liability analysis under either a design defect claim or a malfunction claim is whether the product in question was defective.

2014The Court addressed several evidentiary questions, in the process touching upon foundational notions of strict liability relevant to a design defect claim. 13 In Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Division, Duff-Norton Co., 515 Pa. 334 , 528 A.2d 590 (1987), the Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision to uphold a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who alleged that the design of a control box for an overhead electric hoist was defective because it lacked a safety mechanism to prevent accidental depression of the control buttons.

2014The Court addressed several evidentiary questions, in the process touching upon foundational notions of strict liability relevant to a design defect claim. 13 In Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Division, Duff-Norton Co., 515 Pa. 334 , 528 A.2d 590 (1987), the Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision to uphold a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who alleged that the design of a control box for an overhead electric hoist was defective because it lacked a safety mechanism to prevent accidental depression of the control buttons.

2010Finding that Appellant’s purported cause of action is a design defect claim sounding in products liability, we do not agree. ¶ 12 In Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424 , 220 A.2d 853 (1966), our Supreme Court adopted The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.

2010Finding that Appellant’s purported cause of action is a design defect claim sounding in products liability, we do not agree. ¶ 12 In Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424 , 220 A.2d 853 (1966), our Supreme Court adopted The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.