Sullivan, M. v. Werner Company
253 A.3d 730
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2021Background
- Plaintiff Michael Sullivan fell through a newly-purchased Werner SRS-72 rolling scaffold while working; he suffered permanent back and sacral injuries and sued Werner and Lowe’s in strict products liability (design defect and failure-to-warn).
- Sullivan’s theory: deck pins could be inadvertently rotated off during normal use, an unseated platform could be held out of alignment by a weld protrusion, and the platform would then collapse when reloaded; Sullivan’s mechanical engineer, Russell Rasnic, conducted exemplar testing (videotaped) demonstrating collapses.
- Manufacturer defended with an engineering expert (Dr. Knox), relied on industry/ANSI/OSHA compliance, and argued Sullivan failed to properly seat/secure the platform (i.e., negligence/misuse).
- At trial the court granted Sullivan’s motion in limine excluding government/industry-standards evidence, barred Manufacturer from arguing ordinary negligence as the sole proximate cause, but denied motions to exclude Rasnic’s opinion and videotaped testing; the jury found a design defect and awarded $2.5M (plus delay damages).
- On appeal Manufacturer raised three issues: (1) exclusion of industry/government standards evidence; (2) limitation on arguing plaintiff’s negligence as sole cause; (3) admissibility/factual foundation of Rasnic’s opinion and videotape. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sullivan) | Defendant's Argument (Manufacturer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of government/industry standards evidence in strict-liability design case | Such standards are irrelevant and introduce negligence material; exclusion proper under pre-Tincher precedent | Tincher changed the law so compliance with standards is relevant and admissible under risk-utility/negligence-informed analysis | Exclusion affirmed: Tincher did not implicitly overrule Lewis/Gaudio; Section 402A framework and precedent justify excluding standards evidence absent clearer Supreme Court direction |
| Permitting Manufacturer to argue plaintiff's ordinary negligence was sole proximate cause | Plaintiff: N/A (opposed) | Manufacturer: may argue Sullivan’s failure to properly assemble/seat platform meant accident was solely his negligence/misuse | Denied: Defendant may argue negligence as sole cause only if the accident was entirely unrelated to any product defect; here alleged negligence (assembly/seating) directly related to product, so barring sole-cause negligence argument was proper |
| Admissibility/factual foundation of Rasnic’s expert opinion and his videotaped testing | Rasnic’s opinions and video are reasonably based on Sullivan’s testimony and thus admissible; differences go to weight | Rasnic lacked factual foundation (no evidence deck pins were disengaged or platform unseated) and testing conditions differed from accident, making the video unfairly prejudicial | Admissibility affirmed: Rasnic reasonably assumed facts from Sullivan’s testimony (basis for expert opinion); videotape demonstrative evidence was probative and differences could be exposed on cross-examination |
Key Cases Cited
- Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978) (established strict separation of negligence concepts from strict products-liability analysis under then-controlling law)
- Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff–Norton Co., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987) (held industry-wide use/compliance evidence inadmissible in strict design-defect cases because it focuses on manufacturer conduct)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (overruled Azzarello’s rigid division; adopted consumer-expectations and risk-utility tests but left ancillary evidentiary questions undecided)
- Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co., 976 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. 2009) (extended Lewis rationale to exclude governmental standards evidence in strict-liability cases)
- Webb v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, 148 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2016) (held Tincher did not provide a sufficient basis to discard Lewis/Gaudio evidentiary rule; exclusion of standards evidence remained viable)
- Dunlap v. Federal Signal Corp., 194 A.3d 1067 (Pa. Super. 2018) (applied Webb and Tincher interplay; questioned admissibility issues but required more factual showing for alternative-design proof)
- Kimco Dev. Corp. v. Michael D’s Carpet Outlets, 637 A.2d 603 (Pa. 1993) (ordinary contributory negligence is generally not a defense in strict products-liability actions)
- Madonna v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 708 A.2d 507 (Pa. Super. 1998) (plaintiff conduct may be admitted to show sole cause when conduct is unrelated to the product defect)
- Clark v. Bil-Jax, Inc., 763 A.2d 920 (Pa. Super. 2000) (ordinary negligence admissible only when accident is solely the result of user conduct and unrelated to the alleged defect)