2 F. Supp. 3d 647
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Madalyn Thomas (19 months) and Jason Thomas sue Staples, Inc. and Executive Machines d/b/a Jeam Imports for injuries from a MailMate Paper Shredder.
- Shredder was purchased online around Nov 15, 2006 by Amy Thomas for home use and placed on the Thomas kitchen counter in Dallas, PA.
- On May 25, 2008, Madalyn’s fingers were entrapped while Amy used the shredder; Amy unplugged it and Madalyn was treated for injuries.
- Plaintiffs assert strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and damages; Defendants move for summary judgment.
- The court applies Restatement (Third) of Torts for strict product liability and analyzes design defect, warnings, and causation; several claims are resolved on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which Restatement governs strict liability design defect? | Thomas argues Restatement Third governs. | Staples/Jeam argue Restatement Second governs. | Restatement Third applies. |
| Can a bystander be a strict-liability plaintiff for a defective product? | Bystander status is viable under Restatement Third. | Only users/consumers may recover under the traditional view. | Bystander may recover under Restatement Third; issue remains for causation. |
| Was the failure to warn/Instructions claim defective due to inadequate warnings? | Warnings were insufficient to guard against the risk to children. | Warnings were adequate; risk was obvious; comprehensive warnings unnecessary. | Summary judgment granted for failure-to-warn claim. |
| Did Plaintiffs create a triable issue on duty and causation in negligence? | Defendants owed a duty to Madalyn and causation was at issue. | No duty or causation to Madalyn as bystander. | Duty recognized and causation issue for jury; negligence claim survives summary judgment. |
| Are warranty and punitive damages claims viable? | Express/implied warranties were breached; punitive damages warranted. | Warranty claims abandoned; punitive damages not warranted. | Warranty claims dismissed; punitive damages claim granted to be denied per final order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Covell v. Bell Sports, Inc., 651 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 2011) (Restatement Third governs defect concepts; foreseeability in Third Restatement)
- Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg., Inc., 563 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2009) (Bypass reliance on user/intended-use constraints in strict liability bystander context)
- Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 576 Pa. 644, 841 A.2d 1000 (Pa. 2003) (Acknowledges integration of negligence concepts into strict liability and duty questions)
- Phillips II, 584 Pa. 179, 883 A.2d 489 (Pa. 2005) (Punitive damages standard; not automatic with negligence; emphasis on outrageous conduct)
- Schmidt v. Boardman Co., 608 Pa. 327, 11 A.3d 924 (Pa. 2011) (Pennsylvania products liability design/causation considerations)