Renninger, D. v. A & R Machine Shop
163 A.3d 988
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On May 25, 2007 Dennis Renninger was injured at Commodore Homes when a caster (wheel assembly) running under a modular home ran over his foot; he sued Cass Hudson and A&R (A&R settled pretrial).
- Plaintiffs alleged the casters were defectively designed because they lacked toe guards; trial proceeded on strict products-liability (design defect) theory after summary judgment dismissed manufacturing-defect and failure-to-warn claims.
- Evidence: plaintiffs’ expert (Dreyer) said a toe guard was feasible, would have reduced risk, and should have been provided once casters were relocated to the outer edge of homes; cost increase ~10–12%.
- Defense (Hutter) testified no industry/ANSI or OSHA standard requires toe guards for heavy-duty casters, toe guards could create other hazards, the plant floor was uneven, and employer safety practices (spotters, shoes) mattered; Cass Hudson did not visit the plant and lacked information to design a custom guard.
- Jury returned a defense verdict finding no defective product; trial court denied post-trial motions and entered judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of industry/OSHA/employer-conduct evidence | Evidence of employer conduct and OSHA violations was relevant and should have been excluded only in limited circumstances; Tincher does not permit negligence-derived evidence | Such evidence (industry/OSHA/employer conduct) is relevant to risk-utility/causation and defendants may present industry/ANSI standards and workplace conditions | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the evidence; any error as to employer conduct was harmless given other record evidence and jury instruction limiting its use to causation |
| Jury instruction on risk-utility (use of Dean Wade factors) | Court erred by instructing jury with seven-part Dean Wade factors not adopted in Tincher; instruction could mislead jury | Use of Dean Wade factors is a permissible framework; no timely objection was lodged at trial | Appellants waived the challenge by failing to object; no reversible error shown |
| Jury verdict form sequencing / application of risk-utility | Verdict questions allowed jury to find non-defect without applying risk-utility analysis | Verdict form and instructions appropriately guided jury; risk-utility was addressed | No timely objection preserved; court found no prejudicial error |
| Intended-use doctrine instruction | Court should have instructed on intended-use doctrine under Tincher | Intended-use not material — injury occurred during expected use and no prejudice shown | No harmful error shown; plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice |
| JMOL / new trial challenge (sufficiency of evidence) | Evidence compelled judgment for plaintiffs (toe guard feasibility and defect) | Conflicting expert evidence and industry standards support defense; factual dispute for jury | JNOV/new-trial denied; appellate court affirmed because conflicting evidence made JNOV inappropriate |
| Summary judgment on failure-to-warn/manufacturing-defect claims | Trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on record affidavit and discovery timing; causation/design responsibility unresolved | Court properly granted summary judgment; plaintiffs didn’t show how error affected those dismissed claims | Appellants’ argument undeveloped and unpersuasive; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (adopts consumer-expectation and risk-utility alternative tests and instructs that negligence-derived considerations may affect design-defect analysis)
- Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-Norton Co., Inc., 580 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987) (pre-Tincher rule limiting industry/custom evidence in strict liability cases)
- Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978) (earlier precedent on judicial role in determining unreasonably dangerous products)
- Sheehan v. Cincinnati Shaper Co., 555 A.2d 1352 (Pa. Super. 1989) (OSHA/employer conduct not admissible to show manufacturer’s reasonableness in strict liability)
- Majdic v. Cincinnati Mach. Co., 537 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. 1988) (ANSI/industry custom evidence excluded under pre-Tincher law to avoid focusing on manufacturer’s conduct)
- Rohm & Haas Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 732 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Super. 1999) (standard for JNOV: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner; JNOV appropriate only where no two reasonable minds could differ)
- Kaplan v. O'Kane, 835 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for denial of new trial)