Dunlap, R. v. Federal Signal Corp.
194 A.3d 1067
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Maher and Roell, Pittsburgh firefighters, joined a consolidated mass-tort alleging Q2B siren (Federal Signal) design caused permanent hearing loss. 247 plaintiffs in trial group; Trial Group 1A addressed design defect claims.
- Plaintiffs' theory: Q-siren is unreasonably dangerous; a Bromley shroud (shrouded siren) would funnel sound forward, reducing in-cab exposure while still warning the public.
- Federal Signal argued the shroud would reduce warning effectiveness to pedestrians and motorists (especially at sides/rear/intersections) and thus could create greater hazard; contended plaintiffs lacked evidence the alternative was safe for non-user public.
- Trial court denied defendant’s Frye motion but granted summary judgment on strict liability and later on negligence, finding plaintiffs failed to present expert proof that the alternative design protected motorists and pedestrians as well as the Q-siren.
- Plaintiffs relied on expert Christopher Struck (acoustics) who testified shroud reduced cab noise but explicitly deferred to SAE J1849 and did not opine the shrouded design’s effectiveness for the public; plaintiffs also pointed to compliance with SAE standards.
- The court concluded industry-standard compliance (SAE J1849) alone did not establish a prima facie case under the risk-utility test; expert opinion on effectiveness for all users was required. Judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs proved a feasible alternative design under risk-utility | Shrouded siren meets SAE J1849 and reduces firefighter exposure; thus is feasible and non-defective | Plaintiffs failed to show the alternative warns pedestrians/motorists as effectively; expert evidence lacking | Court: Plaintiffs failed to present expert proof the alternative protected all users; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether compliance with SAE J1849 suffices to show alternative is effective for public | SAE compliance proves alternative meets minimum performance and is therefore effective | SAE sets minimums and does not prove equal or greater public protection; insufficient alone | Court: Compliance with industry standard is not dispositive; expert proof required |
| Whether expert testimony about public-warning effectiveness was required post-Tincher | Expert testimony unnecessary where standard compliance and acoustical proof show safety | Expert testimony required to address technical question of public-warning efficacy for non-users | Court: Expert testimony on public protection required; Struck’s testimony insufficient |
| Whether trial court erred by considering pedestrians/motorists as "users" under risk-utility | Plaintiffs argued court improperly expanded factor to include non-users | Defendant: Tincher requires consideration of utility to user and public as a whole | Court: Consideration of public (motorists/pedestrians) proper; plaintiffs must show alternative protects public |
Key Cases Cited
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (adopts consumer-expectations and risk-utility tests for design defect)
- Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978) (previous rule limiting admissibility of standards; discussed as overruled contextually)
- Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff Norton Co., Inc., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987) (industry/government standard compliance not dispositive on strict liability)
- Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co., 976 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. 2009) (addresses admissibility and relevance of standards in products cases)
- Webb v. Volvo Cars of America, LLC, 148 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2016) (post-Tincher discussion limiting use of standards as proof of non-defectiveness)
- Truax v. Roulhac, 126 A.3d 991 (Pa. Super. 2015) (summary judgment standards and de novo review)