Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 18 EAP 2022 (Pa. 2023)

Summary:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s majority—Justices Mundy, Dougherty, Wecht, and Donohue—insisted on judicial standards that effectively increase potential liability for manufacturers, while dissenting Chief Justice Todd and Justice Brobson would have permitted manufacturers a better defense against frivolous lawsuits. The majority rejected the approach adopted by at least 44 other states and affirmatively embraced the approach adopted by just one other state.

The Verdict:

In contrast to precedent and the approach taken by most states, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made it more difficult for businesses in the commonwealth to defend themselves when accused of manufacturing defective products, even when businesses comply with government or industry standards. The Court’s disregard for government standards means that the courts—not the General Assembly—will ultimately determine how and to what extent manufacturers must adopt consumer safety measures.

Background:

Sullivan is a strict liability case in which the defendant, a scaffolding company, sought to introduce evidence that its design complied with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) federal regulations and industry standards. Mundy, Dougherty, and Wecht held that such evidence is categorically inadmissible, reasoning that it “diverts attention from the product’s attributes” and improperly focuses on the reasonableness of the manufacturer’s conduct, as one would in a negligence case. Instead, they concluded, a strict liability determination must be reached based solely on design features and “irrespective of fault.”

Donohue agreed with the majority’s holding yet was more circumspect, concluding that evidence of compliance with OSHA or industry standards can be admitted if the defendant can establish the relevance of such evidence to the strict liability analysis.

In dissent, Todd and Brobson argued that the majority had abandoned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s precedent recognizing the overlap in strict liability and negligence cases. Under that precedent, they reasoned, defendants should be able to introduce evidence of compliance to show a manufacturer’s reasonableness, just as plaintiffs are allowed to introduce evidence of noncompliance to demonstrate unreasonableness.

Opinions:

Majority Opinion (Hon. Sallie Updyke Mundy, joined by the Hon. Kevin M. Dougherty and Hon. David N. Wecht)

Concurring Opinion (Hon. Christine Donohue)

Dissenting Opinion (Chief Justice Debra Todd, joined by the Hon. P. Kevin Brobson)