Barton v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
124 A.3d 349
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Tredd Barton purchased a new Husqvarna riding lawnmower (with a Kohler engine) from Lowe’s on June 30, 2010 and used it for the first time on July 3, 2010.
- After that first use, while stored in Barton’s barn, the engine or mower allegedly caught fire and/or exploded, destroying the barn.
- Barton sued Husqvarna (manufacturer), Kohler (engine manufacturer), and Lowe’s (retailer) asserting negligence, strict products liability (Restatement §402A theories: design, manufacturing, failure-to-warn), and breach of implied warranties.
- Defendants filed preliminary objections (demurrers); the trial court sustained them and dismissed Barton’s third amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
- Barton appealed; the Superior Court reviewed whether the pleading adequately alleged defect, warranty breach, and negligence-based duties and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint sufficiently pleads strict products-liability defects (design, manufacturing, failure-to-warn) | Barton alleged the mower/engine ran too hot, melted fuel lines, and caused a fire — enough to plead defects and causation | Trial court: allegation that engine "ran too hot" is only a symptom; plaintiff failed to specify design vs manufacturing defect as required | Superior Court: complaint adequately pleaded design, manufacturing, and failure-to-warn theories; dismissal improper |
| Whether complaint states breach of implied warranty of merchantability | Barton alleged mower burst into flames after first use, rendering it unfit and not of fair average quality or even kind | Trial court: Barton did not allege mower was unfit to cut grass or identify a specific defect; so no merchantability claim | Superior Court: “ordinary purpose” includes not self‑destructing; allegations suffice to state warranty claim |
| Whether negligence claims adequately plead duties and breaches (design/manufacture/warnings) | Barton alleged defendants had duties to design/manufacture safely and to provide proper instructions; breaches caused fire | Trial court: complaint failed to identify a duty breached | Superior Court: applying Althaus factors, pleaded facts sufficiently allege duties (relationship, foreseeability, utility, burden, public interest); negligent failure-to-test claims excluded as subsumed by strict liability/negligent design |
| Whether Barton can rely on the "malfunction" doctrine of circumstantial evidence | Barton argued malfunction theory supports inference of defect from unexplained catastrophic failure | Defendants objected; trial court did not consider it | Superior Court: issue waived because not raised below; court expresses no opinion but leaves it to trial court on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Zern, 220 A.2d 853 (Pa. 1966) (adoption of Restatement (Second) §402A for strict products liability)
- Barnish v. KWI Building Co., 980 A.2d 535 (Pa. 2009) (malfunction doctrine as circumstantial evidence of defect)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (reaffirming §402A viability; contrasted with Restatement (Third))
- Riley v. Warren Mfg., Inc., 688 A.2d 221 (Pa. Super. 1997) (plaintiff must prove product defective, defect existed when it left defendant, and defect caused harm)
- Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 841 A.2d 1000 (Pa. 2003) (negligence duty analysis and factual development may determine foreseeability and duty)
- Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000) (five-factor test for whether a duty exists)
- Viguers v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 837 A.2d 534 (Pa. Super. 2003) (claims to test product often subsumed within strict-liability or negligent-design theories)
- Weiley v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 51 A.3d 202 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for preliminary objections in nature of demurrer)