David Covell v. Bell Sports Inc
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14252
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Guardians of an adult son sue Easton-Bell for design and warning defects in Giro Monza helmet after a bicycle crash.
- Case removed to federal court; Pennsylvania law governs substantive issues.
- District court admitted CPSC Standard-based expert testimony and instructed under Restatement (Third) §§ 1–2.
- Jury found helmet not defective; Covells appeal challenging Restatement choice and admissibility of CPSC evidence.
- Court relies on Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing to apply Restatement (Third) §§ 1–2 and affirms district court’s approach.
- Decision centers on whether Pennsylvania law adopts Restatement (Third) or Restatement (Second) and whether CPSC evidence is admissible under §2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper Restatement for PA products liability | Covells: PA law uses §402A; Third is incorrect. | Bell: PA would apply Third as predicted in Berrier. | Apply Restatement (Third) §§ 1–2; affirm. |
| Admissibility of CPSC Standard evidence | CPSC standard is an industry regulation; improper under §2/§4. | Evidence relevant to §2 design/warning defect should be admitted. | Admissible under §2 (and accompanying commentary); affirmed without invoking §4. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc., 563 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2009) (predict Pennsylvania would adopt Restatement Third §§1–2)
- Webb v. Zern, 220 A.2d 853 (Pa. 1966) (adopted §402A as PA law)
- Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978) (keep negligence concepts out of strict liability)
- Schmidt v. Boardman Co., 11 A.3d 924 (Pa. 2011) (discusses no-negligence-in-strict-liability ambiguities)
- Davis v. Berwind Corp., 690 A.2d 186 (Pa. 1997) (product alteration doctrine exception to strict liability)
- Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 841 A.2d 1000 (Pa. 2003) (dissent criticizing neg.* in strict liability; context for § Third)
- Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Division, Duff-Norton Co., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987) (industry regulation evidence barred under pre-Berrier approach)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (Erie/choice of law in federal diversity cases)
- Tilghman, Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 673 A.2d 898 (Pa. 1996) (Pa. Supreme Court guidance on certiorari dismissal)