S. Chin v. New Flyer of America, Inc. and SEPTA
169 A.3d 689
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 5, 2012, pedestrian Steven Chin was struck by a left‑turning SEPTA bus and suffered severe, permanent injuries to his right foot/ankle. New Flyer manufactured the bus; SEPTA operated it.
- Chin sued New Flyer (product liability and negligence); jury found New Flyer not liable on product‑defect/strict liability but found New Flyer negligent and awarded $5 million in non‑economic damages, apportioning fault 25% to New Flyer and 75% to SEPTA.
- Trial evidence focused on the driver’s‑side (roadside) mirror: SEPTA specs required a Rosco 8"x15" mirror but did not fix mounting height; New Flyer mounted the mirror at 46" (higher than typical) which created a sight‑line obstruction; SEPTA conducted internal and third‑party vision studies and later retrofitted mirrors.
- New Flyer moved post‑trial for judgment n.o.v., new trial, or remittitur; trial court denied relief. New Flyer appealed, raising (reordered) inconsistency of verdict, sufficiency/weight of evidence, refusal to charge on sophisticated user/purchaser, and excessiveness of damages.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed most of the trial court’s order but vacated its finding that New Flyer waived the weight‑of‑the‑evidence claim and remanded for the trial court to issue an opinion addressing that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chin) | Defendant's Argument (New Flyer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict is inconsistent: finding no product defect but finding manufacturer negligent | Jury verdict should stand; negligence and defect are distinct theories | A finding of no defect is incompatible with a negligence finding; inconsistent verdict required contemporaneous objection | Issue waived for failure to object before jury discharge; Supreme Court precedent requires contemporaneous objection to inconsistent verdicts (affirmed waiver) |
| Sufficiency and weight of the evidence | Evidence supported verdict; no reversible error | Insufficient evidence for negligence and verdict shocks the conscience | Sufficiency argument waived for failure to move nonsuit/directed verdict; weight‑of‑evidence claim not waived — remanded to trial court to address merits (trial court’s prior order vacated on this narrow point) |
| Refusal to instruct on sophisticated user / sophisticated purchaser (Restatement §388) | Instruction unnecessary | SEPTA was a sophisticated purchaser/user; New Flyer’s duty to warn was reduced; requested jury charge | Pennsylvania has not adopted §388/sophisticated user doctrine; trial court did not err in refusing the instruction (denial affirmed) |
| Excessiveness of $5M non‑economic award / remittitur | Award supported by objective injuries, permanency, life impact | Award excessive, based largely on subjective complaints | Appellate court defers to factfinder; trial court’s analysis upheld and award not disturbed (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 322 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1974) (explains requirement and purpose of contemporaneous objections at trial)
- City of Philadelphia v. Gray, 633 A.2d 1090 (Pa. 1993) (contemporaneous objection required when jury renders inconsistent answers; failure to object waives claim)
- Criswell v. King, 834 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2003) (distinguishes inconsistent‑verdict rule from weight‑of‑evidence claims; weight claims ripen post‑verdict)
- Straub v. Cherne Indus., 880 A.2d 561 (Pa. 2005) (similar facts: jury found no defect but found negligence; issue waived for failure to object prior to discharge)
- Phillips v. A‑Best Prods. Co., 665 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1995) (explains that Pennsylvania has not adopted sophisticated user/purchaser doctrine in the context presented)
- Amato v. Bell & Gossett, 116 A.3d 607 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Superior Court held sophisticated user doctrine not adopted; trial court properly refused instruction)