Schmidt v. Boardman Co.
11 A.3d 924
| Pa. | 2011Background
- CVFD dispatched a Boardman pumper; a 200-foot pre-connected hose fell, injured two children and caused death, witnessed by family members.
- Plaintiffs allege successor liability under the product-line exception; defendants include Sinor/Freightliner and BI, with TBC/Boardman as the original manufacturer family.
- Sinor acquired the Boardman name and drawings after TBC’s insolvency and later reorganizations; BI acquired various assets post-liquidation.
- Trial focused on three issues: defect in the Boardman pumper, applicability of the product-line exception, and CVFD negligence; emotional-distress claims by family-witnesses were also advanced.
- The trial court instructed on a broad product-line theory and allowed bystander emotional-distress recovery; verdict allocated liability equally among Appellees and CVFD
- On appeal, the Superior Court majority supported the product-line framework and bystander emotional distress; a dissent preferred limiting emotional distress to physical harm and questioned product-line doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viability of product-line exception | Schmidt argued the exception should apply to make Sinor liable. | Sinor asserted the product-line exception is waived and should not extend liability. | Waived; question not preserved in trial/Superior Court. |
| Contours/standard of product-line exception | Dawejko and Ramirez framework should govern liability. | Ray factors mandatory with Ramirez advisory; Schmidt misapplied Hill/Dawejko. | Trial court’s Dawejko-based instruction acceptable; proper reconciliation of precedents. |
| Judicial vs. jury role in product-line determination | Jury should decide, per Plaintiff’s position. | Judge should decide product-line issues as equitable questions. | Court did not err in presenting product-line determination to the jury under Dawejko. |
| Emotional distress recoverability under strict liability | Bystander family members may recover emotional distress under Sinn/NEID principles. | Recovery should be limited or disallowed absent physical harm under strict liability. | Affirmed as to emotional-distress recovery under Sinn framework (majority); issue discussed but not reversed here. |
| Physical injury requirement in strict products liability | Physical and emotional harms should be recoverable without the physical-impact rule. | Physical injury is required or emotional injuries are not recoverable in strict liability. | Equal division; affirm by operation of law; physical-injury threshold unresolved in this ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dawejko v. Jorgensen Steel Co., 290 Pa. Super. 15 (Pa. Super. 1981) (adopts product-line exception framework)
- Hill v. Trailmobile, Inc., 412 Pa. Super. 320 (Pa. Super. 1992) (elaborates on Ray factors, conflicting with Dawejko)
- Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc., 431 A.2d 825 (N.J. 1981) (origin of the product-line concept quoted from Ramirez)
- Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146 (Pa. 1979) (bystander's emotional distress framework)
- Simmons v. Pacor, Inc., 543 Pa. 664 (Pa. 1996) (limits emotional distress absent physical injury in strict liability context)
- Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424 (Pa. 1966) (extends Section 402A to bystanders who encounter defective product)
- Pegg v. General Motors Corp., 258 Pa. Super. 59 (Pa. Super. 1978) (recognizes bystander recovery under 402A when encountering product)
- DGS v. U.S. Mineral Prods. Co., 587 Pa. 236 (Pa. 2006) (cautions against expanding strict liability; no further expansions)
- Philliips v. Cricket Lighters, 576 Pa. 644 (Pa. 2003) (no negligence-based expansions into strict liability; design/foreseeability debates)