Webb v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC
148 A.3d 473
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- 2009 fatal side-impact collision: a 1997 Volvo 850 struck by a Chrysler PT Cruiser; two-month-old Sabino Webb died while secured in a Graco SnugRide car seat in the rear passenger-side where impact occurred.
- Mark Webb (administrator for Sabino) sued Volvo (vehicles) and Graco (car seat) raising negligence and strict products liability (crashworthiness/design defect) claims; mother/driver Ana Soares was an additional defendant.
- At trial the court granted nonsuit on plaintiff’s negligence claims (not appealed) and directed a verdict for one defendant; jury returned defense verdicts for Volvo and Graco on strict products liability claims; plaintiff lost to Soares on liability.
- Plaintiff objected to jury instructions allowing consideration of evidence that the products complied with FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) after negligence claims were dismissed; trial court nevertheless instructed the jury that FMVSS compliance could be considered but not dispositive.
- The Superior Court held plaintiff adequately preserved the objection, concluded the jury instruction admitting FMVSS evidence for strict liability was erroneous under governing precedent, and ordered a new trial on strict liability claims.
- Remaining evidentiary rulings (expert qualifications, exclusion of some Volvo ads, quashed subpoenas, rebuttal FMVSS testing) were treated as moot, waived, or without reversible error but may be revisited on remand as appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/instruction re: FMVSS evidence after negligence nonsuit | FMVSS evidence is irrelevant to strict products liability and jury should be instructed to disregard it | FMVSS compliance is relevant evidence on defect and jury may consider it; Tincher undermines prior bar | Court: Plaintiff preserved objection; under existing precedent (Gaudio/Lewis) evidence was inadmissible for strict liability; erroneous instruction required new trial |
| Effect of Tincher overruling Azzarello on FMVSS rule | Gaudio/Lewis remain controlling; Tincher was not made retroactive here and did not plainly eliminate FMVSS exclusion | Tincher’s rejection of strict separation between negligence and strict liability permits industry/regulatory evidence | Court: Tincher did not clearly eliminate the rationale for excluding government/industry standards; question better addressed in future post-Tincher cases; nonetheless instruction here was erroneous |
| Exclusion of plaintiff expert’s FMVSS-replication rebuttal testing | Testimony was rebuttal of defendants’ FMVSS-related evidence and should be admitted | Trial court excluded as untimely expansion of expert report | Court: Moot given ruling that FMVSS evidence shouldn't have been considered for strict liability, so exclusion not reviewed on merits |
| Qualification/ admissibility of defense biomechanics experts opining on survivability | Plaintiff: experts not qualified to opine survival/medical causation | Defendants: biomechanical experts may opine on forces and injury causation without being medical doctors | Court: Experts were sufficiently qualified in biomechanics; admissible; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co., 976 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. 2009) (industry/government-standards evidence is inadmissible in strict products liability design cases under then-governing law)
- Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff Norton Co., Inc., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987) (negligence concepts should not be grafted onto strict liability; industry practice evidence risks diverting jury to manufacturer’s conduct)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (overruled Azzarello; adopted consumer-expectations and risk-utility frameworks for design-defect claims and recognized interplay between negligence concepts and strict liability)
- Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978) (pre-Tincher precedent barring negligence concepts from strict liability; later overruled in part by Tincher)