Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Sharp Electronics Corporation
4:08-cv-01678
| M.D. Penn. | Jul 5, 2011Background
- Fire at Authentic China Wok, State College, PA on May 22, 2006; Plaintiffs allege fire originated in a Sharp cash register purchased at Office Depot Bellefonte and manufactured by Sharp.
- Plaintiffs assert strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence claims against Sharp and Office Depot.
- Actions brought by restaurant and shopping center owners, insurers, and Subway’s insurer; removed to this Court and consolidated.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing lack of evidence that the cash register was Sharp, purchased at Office Depot, or defective.
- R&R recommended granting summary judgment; plaintiffs object, urging malfunction theory supported by expert testimony; court rejects R&R on defect issue and denies summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine dispute about the cash register’s brand and purchase | Plaintiffs claim Sharp brand and Office Depot purchase. | Sharp and Office Depot dispute brand/purchase authenticity. | Genuine disputes exist regarding brand and purchase. |
| Whether a summary judgment on defect-based liability is warranted | Malfunction theory with expert circumstantial evidence supports liability. | No direct or sufficient evidence of a defect; summary judgment appropriate. | Summary judgment denied; malfunction theory permissible for jury consideration. |
| Whether malfunction theory under Pennsylvania law allows circumstantial proof when product is destroyed | Malfunction theory permits proving defect via circumstantial evidence. | Circumstantial proof insufficient without direct defect evidence. | Court approves malfunction theory; circumstantial evidence can support a defect finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (establishes standard for genuine issues of material fact; summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden-shifting framework on summary judgment)
- Dansak v. Cameron Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 703 A.2d 489 (Pa. Super. 1997) (malfunction theory allows defect-proof by circumstantial evidence when product unavailable)