Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc.
55 A.3d 1088
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Duane Reott was injured when a Remington tree stand failed; the defect was a locking strap glued rather than stitched.
- Defendants Asia Trend, Remington Arms, RA Brands, and The Sportsman’s Guide were sued in strict products liability under Section 402A.
- Plaintiff alleged manufacturing defect: locking strap glue-only construction caused the fall.
- Defendants argued highly reckless conduct by the plaintiff negated causation; they contended the plaintiff’s setting-the-stand maneuver caused the accident.
- Trial court granted partial directed verdict on defect but denied causation; the jury found for defendants on causation and the defense.
- Superior Court held that highly reckless conduct is an affirmative defense and must be proven as such, and that it must be the sole or superseding cause to bar liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is highly reckless conduct an affirmative defense in 402A actions? | Reott argues no; evidence is rebuttal only. | Appellants say it is an affirmative defense. | Yes, highly reckless conduct is an affirmative defense. |
| If affirmative, must it show sole or superseding cause? | Reott contends not required to be sole/superseding. | Defendants must prove sole or superseding cause. | Yes, it must be the sole or superseding cause. |
| May a defendant plead highly reckless conduct in the alternative while denying causation? | Not specifically addressed; relies on traditional pleading. | Argues pleading in the alternative is allowed. | Yes, alternative pleading permitted; defense may deny causation while asserting highly reckless conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., 462 Pa. 83 (Pa. 1975) (abnormal use evidence admissible to rebut causation, not as a separate defense (plurality))
- Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co., 976 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. 2009) (highly reckless conduct akin to product misuse; burden on defendant)
- Charlton v. Toyota Indus. Equip., 714 A.2d 1043 (Pa. Super. 1998) (definition of highly reckless conduct)
- Childers v. Power Line Equip. Rentals, Inc., 452 Pa. Super. 94 (Pa. Super. 1996) (reconciling assumption of risk, misuse, and highly reckless conduct)
- Madonna v. Harley Davidson, Inc., 708 A.2d 507 (Pa. Super. 1998) (use of highly reckless conduct to show superseding cause)
- Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 183 Ariz. 399, 904 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1995) (misuse as absolute defense; superseding cause context)
- Dillinger v. Caterpillar, Inc., 959 F.2d 430 (3d Cir. 1992) (federal interpretation cited on causation in PA)