Meyers, T. v. LVD Acquisitions, LLC
Meyers, T. v. LVD Acquisitions, LLC No. 1740 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Meyers purchased and had delivered a water cooler in April 2014 and placed it directly on a hardwood floor without a protective mat.
- Within a week, nearby floorboards heaved; Meyers did not observe active leaking or quantify water loss but suspected the cooler caused the damage.
- Berube’s (installer/vendor) removed, repaired, and returned the cooler; Meyers does not know what repairs were performed. Oasis (LVD) manufactured the cooler.
- Meyers sued Oasis alleging: strict liability (design defect), negligent design/maintenance, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
- Oasis moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it (Sept. 23, 2016). Meyers appealed; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict liability — design defect (and asserted failure-to-warn) | Meyers contends the cooler was defectively designed and leaked, causing floor damage. | Oasis argued Meyers pleaded a design defect (not failure-to-warn), waived any new failure-to-warn theory, and lacks evidence (including expert proof) to show a defective condition or causation. | Court: Waived failure-to-warn theory; under consumer-expectations test the risk of wetting is foreseeable to ordinary users; under risk-utility test Meyers needed expert proof and produced none — summary judgment for Oasis. |
| Negligent design and/or maintenance | Meyers says Oasis negligently designed/maintained the cooler causing the leak. | Oasis argued Meyers cannot identify specific defect, lacks requisite technical knowledge, and produced no expert to prove defect or causation; proffered documents were unauthenticated hearsay. | Court: Expert testimony required for technical defect/causation; Meyers offered no admissible expert evidence — summary judgment for Oasis. |
| Breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose | Meyers alleges the cooler failed to perform its particular purpose. | Oasis noted Meyers bought the cooler for ordinary drinking use, selected the unit simply because it was in stock, did not inform seller of a special purpose or rely on seller’s skill. | Court: No special purpose or reliance was shown; claim fails — summary judgment for Oasis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mee v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 908 A.2d 344 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Miller v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 753 A.2d 829 (abuse of discretion explained)
- Pappas v. Asbel, 768 A.2d 1089 (scope of review/plenary review)
- Chenot v. A.P. Green Services, Inc., 895 A.2d 55 (summary judgment standard and plaintiff’s burden)
- Grossman v. Barke, 868 A.2d 561 (pleading rules and waiver of unpled causes of action)
- Phillips v. A-Best Products Co., 665 A.2d 1167 (strict liability failure-to-warn elements)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (design-defect frameworks: consumer-expectations and risk-utility tests)
- Lance v. Wyeth, 624 Pa. 231 (summary judgment when plaintiff fails to produce essential evidence)
- Johnson v. Harris, 615 A.2d 771 (summary judgment standards)
- Brandon v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 34 A.3d 104 (expert testimony requirement for technical defect proof)
- Gall v. Allegheny County Health Dep't, 555 A.2d 786 (definition of particular-purpose warranty)