*1 Hope DeSANTIS, D. Executrix of the Angela DeSantis,

Estate of L.

Deceased, Appellants COMPANY, by merger,

FRICK now Corporation

York International Institute, Defense

Appellees.

Superior Pennsylvania. Court of

Argued June 1999.

Filed Dec. 1999.

Reargument Feb. Denied Riley, Erie, Henderson,

Tim James A. Ithaca, NY, Twerski, D. Aaron Brook- NY, lyn, appellant. Erie, Frick, appel-

James R. Fryling, lee.

' JOHNSON, LALLY-GREEN, Before HESTER, JJ. LALLY-GREEN, J.: ¶ Appellant, Hope DeSantis, appeals order Court Common Pleas of County granting Erie summary judgment Appellee, Company, in this action. We affirm. ¶2 The trial court made the following of fact: findings Company the Frick manufac- tured and sold an industrial freezer to Corporation. Rich Products It also in- stalled the unit in the manu- company’s *2 Counts I and actions. that death and survival to such an extent factoring plant products on “im- II based strict parties agree the were constituted within 402A of the Restatement provement property” to real the under Section 402A”). generally § meaning of Pa.C.S. (“Section (Second) of ToRts in Repose”. alleged negligence of and referred to as “Statute III IV Counts and Counts V design and manufacture. DeSantis, Angela Rich Products [a] liability as to products in VI sounded strict employee, killed result of inhal- was as a post-sale of its Frick’s breach working ing anhydrous ammonia while warn. plant in in the 1993. The ammonia was workplace released into because ¶ Frick filed November On “hy- ruptured

valve on the freezer from judgment alleging summary motion shock,” draulic a condition which some- wrongful Appellant’s of action times ammonia used liquid occurs limita- by the statute of death was barred and accumu- refrigerant as a condenses survival remaining tions and that during freezer manual lates coil re- by the statute of claims were barred defrosting. stopped Frick manufactur- for sum- pose. argument At on the motion system kind of in the freezer mary conceded judgment, Appellant No the system late 1960’s. valve on II, III, IV, I, were barred Counts previously installed at Rich failed repose argued of but the statute this manner. VI, duty to post-sale Counts V 1980’s, mid to late manufactur- N.T., claims, so barred. warn were not type ers of industrial freezers 8/26/98,at 3. began installing “liq- issue this case Frick’s sum- granted 5 The trial court drainer,” prevented uid which condensed motion, mary concluding that judgment liquid accumulating and ammonia from Appellant’s post-sale action for cause of hydraulic reduced chance Pennsyl- duty to warn barred because addition, 1990’s, early shock. In in the cause of recognize does not vania law device as a known “scrubber” devel- This duty to post-sale action for a warn. oped dissipating which had the effect appeal followed. pressure inordinate would build which up behind the valves as a result of the ap- issues on Appellant raises two liquid ammonia freez- accumulation peal: concerning er coils. Information use 1) trial court erred Whether devices was disseminated these judgment on the summary granting throughout industry freezer does not law basis aware of it been a manufacturer’s recognize through publications trade other safety inher- duty to warn of hazards means. Frick did advise Rich or use of the in the continued ent their other freezer customers of utiliza- technological improvements uct and tion. one or of these devices Had both minimize such hazards? which system, on Rich’s freezer been installed 2) Assuming Pennsylvania imposes law that the valve likelihood alleged post-sale duty to warn ruptured would have been would have Pennsylvania’s Appellant, whether significantly diminished. bars applies to and repose statute 10/27/98, Opinion, at 1-3.

Trial Court her claim? omitted). (Footnote Brief Appellant’s ¶ Appellant, Angela De- mother trial 6, 1997, Santis, 7 This Court’s review complaint on June filed summary judgment granting court’s daughter May her on death of wrongful well complaint alleged settled: 1996. The reviewing [W]hen the propriety of a independent manufacturer has an trial court’s order granting summary duty to warn about risks and risk-avoid- judgment, we must view the record in ance measures that occur after the time of the light most favorable to the non-mov- irrespective of whether ing party and determine whether *3 was defective at the time of moving party has established that there original Specifically, Appellant sale. exists no genuine issue of material fact alleges that the 1964 refrigeration system and that it is judg- therefore entitled to became point defective at some between ment as a matter of law. Skipworth v. 1985 and 1993 failed to advise Assoc., Lead Industries Rich Products that liquid use of float (1997). 690 A.2d 171 The non-mov- drainers or “snubbers” were being recom- ing party is entitled to all reasonable mended. Any

inferences. doubts as to the exis- provides: Section 10 tence of dispute a factual must be re- Liability of solved in Commercial Product Seller the non-moving party’s favor or and Distributor for Harm summary judgment by Caused appropriate is only in the clearest of Post-Sale Failure to Warn Kingston cases. Co., Inc., Coal Co. v. Mining Felton 456 (a) engaged One in the business of sell- Pa.Super. 270, 277, 690 A.2d 287 or otherwise distributing (Pa.Super.1997). subject is for harm to

Roman Mosaic & Tile Co. v. Aetna Casu persons or property caused alty Co., Surety & provide seller’s failure to a warning (Pa.Super.1997). Summary judgment after the time of or distribution appropriate: if a person reasonable when the pleadings, depositions, an- position provide the seller’s would swers to interrogatories, admissions on warning. such a file, and affidavits demonstrate (b) A person in reasonable the seller’s there genuine exists no issue of material position provide warning would af- fact. moving The party has the burden ter the time of sale if: of proving the non-existence of gen- (1) the seller knows or uine issue of fact. The non-moving par- should product po- know that the ty must demonstrate that there is a ses a substantial risk of harm to genuine may issue for trial and not rest persons property; or and on pleadings.... averments Sum- (2) those to warning might whom a mary be judgment may only granted provided can be identified and can cases where it is clear and free from reasonably be assumed to be un- doubt that the moving party is entitled harm; aware the risk of judgment as a matter and of law. Merriweather v. Philadelphia Newspa- can effectively com- Inc., pers, 464, 469-72, municated to and acted on (1996) (citations omitted). warning might those whom a provided; and

¶ Appellant argues first adopt should Section 10 of the risk of harm sufficiently (“Sec the Restatement (ThiRd) great the burden of ToRts 10”),1 tion thereby recognize that a viding a warning.2 (THIRD) 1. The RESTATEMENT OF TORTS: a. recognition Rationale. Judicial of the sell- LIABILITY, adopted by PRODUCTS product-related er's to warn of a American Appel- sale, Law Institute in 1997. See after the time of whether or not the lant's Brief at 20. is defective at the time of meaning sale within the of other Sections of Restatement, 2. The Comments to Section 10 relatively state: new. None- theless, person in depends whether a reasonable growing body of on decisional warn under the statutory imposes duty. Courts the retailer’s would law such (b)(1) Subsection criteria set forth in recognize that about risks discov- through necessary to after sale are ered sometimes Requirement or other prevent significant persons and that seller distribu- harm to c. Nevertheless, product- or should know property. an unbounded tor knows duly time A warn impose unac- related risk. to warn product sell- arise unless the ceptable of sale cannot burdens on sellers. communicating knows or in er or other distributor identifying costs exercise of reasonable care should know years after sale are often with users Furthermore, product-related plain- daunting. product designs risk that causes time, may improved have known developed tiff's harm. seller over risk at the time of many by sub- should have known risks are reduced or avoided sale, will design changes. every post-sale which case failure to warn sequent If *4 product improvement product design were to cause the to be defective under in a 2(c). give § even if the is defec- duty to a warn the risks But not rise to users of no continuing design, time of reason- existing of to the the tive the sale because use would have known of the risk on sellers would be unac- able seller burden 2(c), knowledge may great. § of the risk ceptably under duty may give rise to a with all that raise come after sale As rules the exists, duty the time. a courts make to warn at that whether must cases, matter, that, post-sale particular practical As a most threshold decisions that arise new information triers of fact could find duties to warn when seller, practically brought effec- is to the attention of the sellers can sale, concerning discharge obligation ac- tively and that after time of risks such an the product’s consump- sufficiently great companying to the use or the risks of harm are actually brought justify typically what is a tion. risks are not substantial When sellers, of undertaking. deciding sale In whether a to the of the burden attention performance post-sale duty constantly monitoring product on to claim based breach fact, usually the to warn should reach the trier of field is too burdensome require- support er, post-sale duty court must determine to warn. Howev- whether the a (b)(1) through grounds ments in are reasonable exist for the Subsection by proof. legal supported suspect is hitherto The standard seller to that a unknown exists, person provide especially a whether reasonable would risk when the risk involved great, duly may a post-sale warning. In serious is of reasonable care of the potential regard overburdening require investigation. one sellers in this With to regard, prescription drugs and carefully products, examine class court should of devices, impose against imposing traditionally a con- the circumstances for and courts provide warning tinuing duty post-sale duty a to a in a care to test and of reasonable particular product-relat- to case. monitor after sale discover person b.When a reasonable in the seller’s ed risks. position provide warning. Requirement a that risk of harm be would d. governing a arise standard of the seller substantial. For to Section, objective: person be is whether a under this the risk of harm must reasonable position provide great a as level of risk that in the seller’s at least as would 2(c). § warning. traditionally warning Be- require This a under is the standard invariably applied determining negligence. post-sale warnings are See Re- cause statement, Second, costly post-sale § provide, Torts Comment to increases applying knowledge risks are to some extent inev- c.In the reasonableness standard of itable, duty arises sale to members of of it is after time of the chain distribution possible warnings regarding product-related party’s may that be to one conduct issue infrequently occur are reasonable and another’s unreasonable. accidents If example, may likely a harm. manufacturer discover not to substantial For knowledge satisfying post-sale acquisition ad- information under circumstances (b)(1) infrequent through be that are both Subsection and thus verse outcomes trigger post-sale a provide post-sale warning. required a and insubstantial were to warn, contrast, costly and generally a sellers would face retailer is not in crushing potentially position discovered burdens. to know about Requirement to whom a warn- by the manufacturer after sale and thus e. those provided subject might be identifiable. it neither because prod- problem identifying those to whom nor risk. Once knows should know the risk, might especial- warnings provided is aware of how- uct the retailer made ever, ly post-sale context. When subject to lia- relevant in the whether the retailer is distributed, failing products originally bility post-sale are sold to issue ¶ 9 Comment a to Section 10 states that strated. See Crowston v. Goodyear Tire & Co., (N.D. seller’s Rubber product- warn of a 521 N.W.2d 1994). related risk after the time of applies sale “whether or not the is defective at ¶ 10 A manufacturer’s duty to time of sale.” Section 10 warn derived from the doctrine of strict

premises duty upon finding products liability pursuant to Section 402A. every each and one of the four enu- Walton v. Avco Corp., 575-76, 10(b) merated factors Section is demon- Section 402A accompanies most often the seller effectively act to reduce the risk. To uct, together packaging, with its with what- potentially high providing post- cost of warnings ever appropriate. are When warning, those warnings to whom such knowledge product-related risk is avail- provided position must be in a to re- sale, able only to the seller may prevent product-caused duce or harm. who, difficult for the seller to determine recipients warnings Such need not be general population users and original purchasers long so consumers, respond is in they are able effectively. to reduce risk warnings instances, effectively. In some Requirement i. that the risk of harm be suffi- may identify customer records popula- ciently great justify providing post-sale tion to whom provided. should be warning. Compared with the costs of Individual names and addresses are not *5 viding warnings original attendant necessarily required. may Records indicate sale a providing the costs of users, product classes of geographically or post-sale warnings typically greater. are limited markets. But when no such rec- context, post-sale identifying those who available, ords are inability the seller's warning should receive a and communicat- identify warnings those for whom would be warning require large to them can may useful properly prevent ' post-sale a expenditures. recognize Courts these bur- arising. to warn from See Comment post-sale dens warning and hold that a is g- required only when the of harm is f. The assuming reasonableness of that those sufficiently great justify undertaking a warning to whom a might provided be post-sale warning program. Subsection unaware of the risk. justify To the cost of (b)(4) that, requires even for a substantial providing post-sale warning, a it must rea- risk, a a seller owes to warn after the sonably appear that those to whom a warn- time only of sale if the risk of harm is ing might provided be are unaware of the sufficiently great the cost 2,§ risk. j. See Similarly, Comment even viding post-sale a warning. The test defin- knowledge if reasonably of the risk becomes ing unreasonable conduct governs negligence generally. See Restate- is that which available only to the seller original after the sale, if users and consumers are at that time ment, Second, § Torts 291. generally aware of post-sale the risk a j. Distinguishing post-sale failure to warn warning required. is not existing from defects the time at of sale. g. ability The seller’s to communicate the product When a is defective at the time of warning effectively to those who are in a liability sale be can established without ref- prevent to act to harm. For a erence to a to warn. A seller post-sale arise, duty to warn to the seller product who discovers sale that its must be able to communicate was defective at the of sale within the time warning to those appropri- identified as meaning gener- of this Restatement cannot recipients. ate original When customer ally issuing liability by absolve itself sales records indicate which individuals are post-sale warning. long probably using As consuming product causally question, defect is to the harm suf- related direct communication of a warning plaintiff, prima fered may be facie case feasible. When direct feasible, communication is Restatement can be established may under necessary notwithstanding post-sale public to utilize reasonable efforts media to course, product disseminate warn. Of when a regarding information even risks of group may substantial harm. As the defective at to whom the time of sale a seller warnings might provided independent obligation have an increases in to issue a size, communicating costs of warnings may warning based on the rule stated Thus, increase and may plaintiff their in this may effectiveness de- Section. seek crease. recovery based on both a time-of-sale defect Requirement h. those to whom a and a warn. failure to n (Illustrations might provided omitted). be able to substance, requires, Strict strict on the seller imposes proof: requisite only “in unreason- two elements of a defective condition product was prove to the that the ably dangerous consumer.”3 the need defective, prove that the and the need to Supreme adopted Sec 11 Our Court proximate was. defect prod strict doctrine of tion 402A Also, plaintiff injuries.... plaintiffs Pennsylvania liability as the law of causing the defect prove must Zern, 422 Pa. ago. v. three decades Webb at time the injury existed The doctrine 220 A.2d 853 hands; the seller is not the seller’s left Hel Brantly v. addressed Berkebile unsafe if a is made hable A.2d 893 Corp., 462 Pa. icopter changes. subsequent (1975) and, recently, more Walton 575-76, A.2d 530 Pa. Corp., Avco at 898. Id. (1992).4

454, 458 the lack ruled that 14 The Court then Berkebile, Court may 12 In and instructions warnings of sufficient liability concept strict under ruled that addressed defect. constitute respect law with limited to condition” is not “a defective There, the estate and instructions. and that design or manufacture defects wrongful death Cloyd brought Berkebile that the seller must assure Berkebile action on behalf of and survival A.2d at 902. for use. Id. at safe helicopter piloting was killed while who warn- give a seller must such Specifically, Helicopter by Brantly manufactured Cor- required as are ings and instructions 337 A.2d at 897. poration. the inher- inform the user consumer of recov- grounds The estate asserted four products. risks or limitations of ent design; manufac- ery: defective defective such defective absent If the *6 ture; misrepre- inadequate warnings; and proximate and the defect is warnings, 91, Id. at at A sentation. 337 A.2d 897. the seller is plaintiffs injuries, of the cause es- jury Brantly found for and Berkebile’s negligence. proof liable without strictly Id. A.2d at 893. appealed. tate ques- the then ruled that Id. The Court reversed, appeal, Superior the On warnings was: jury concerning for the tion Supreme and the Court affirmed. Id. appearing the warnings the whether placard cockpit Supreme flight addressed manual and the 13 The Court first Mr. Berkebile prove to of action sufficient to make requirement the were power failure dangers in strict aware of grounded liability: (b) bought not provides: the user or has consumer 3. Section 402A any into con- from or entered Liability for Special of Seller of Product tractual relation with the seller. Physical Harm to or Consumer User (1) product in a defec- One who sells see, unreasonably dangerous Incollingo Ewing, condition v. tive 4. But property (1971). the user or consumer or to his Supreme Court A.2d 206 subject liability physical harm for that strict was specifically determined thereby caused the ultimate user involving adequa- applicable to case not consumer, if property, or to his dangerous respect cy with (a) engaged business of the seller is in the determined, drug. effects of a The Court side rather, selling and such properly decided on that the case was (b) expected reach the it is to and does negligence under principles sec- basis of without substantial user or consumer (SECOND) of the RESTATEMENT tion 388 change which it was in the condition TORTS, liability of a dealing with the OF sold. dangerous supplier to be of a chattel known applies The rule stated in Subsection Id.., n. 444 at 288 its intended use. although (a) 8. at 220 n. possible all the seller exercised has preparation sale of his in the care product, and autorotation, delayed engine and whether subject helicopter was over- said warnings adequately conveyed hauled pump but the oil was repaired urgency of the situation and the because the service company need to had not been react instantaneously. almost If advised of the service instruction. Id. jury helicopter determines that the was ¶ 16 The jury engine found that the in a defective condition the failure to helicopter was defective in design and provide sufficient warnings di- defect caused the deaths of the use, rections the seller is liable for pñot passenger. Id. at all harm thereby. caused at 457. jury also determined that It emphasized must be that the test of Hughes’ indepen- failure warn was an necessity of warnings or instructions design dent defect and a substantial con- governed is not to be by the reasonable tributing factor in the resulting deaths. man standard. In the strict Id. The Hughes Court ruled that reject context we standards based had a duty to warn of the defec- what the “reasonable” could tive engine manufactured consumer Avco where know, expected or what the “rea- engine was defective from the date of sonable” expect- manufacturer could be Hughes manufacture and where ed to “foresee” about prior the consumers who been given notice defect. Id. 574-75, use product.... Rather, his the sole 610 A.2d at 458. question here is whether the seller ac- ¶ 17 This Court has ruled that no companied his with sufficient to warn about technological ad-

instructions and so as to make vances exists where no defect existed his safe. jury This is for the at the Lynch time sale. determine. Associates, McStome and Lincoln Plaza Id. at 337 A.2d at 902. 548 A.2d 1276 Lynch injured when an escalator she ¶ 15 In Walton v. Avco Corp., our Su- riding an abrupt stop. came to preme Court addressed the issue of a man- Lynch sued the manufacturer of the esca- ufacturer’s duty to warn about lator, escalator, company the service existing defects in a at the time of and the owner of premises where the There, sale. the manufacturer of a heli- escalator was located. Id. alleged She copter (Hughes) and the manufacturer of a *7 they negligent negli- were and that their (Avco) component engine were found hable , gence injuries. jury caused her Id. The pilot for the deaths of a passenger as a defendants, returned verdict for the result of a pump defective oil in the en- Lynch appealed. Id. at 1276-77. gine. 568, 530 Pa. at 610 A.2d at 454. crash, Before the engine but after the appeal, Lynch had 18 On argued that the sold, been Avco had learned that en- trial court erred in refusing to allow evi- gine pump contained a defective oil dence that the manufacturer had failed to was defective at the time notify of sale of the premises owner of the that a pump. Id. at 610 A.2d at 456. Avco new braking system escalator allowed for had issued a and, service advising longer stopping further, instruction distances the defect and providing proce- detailed put system failed to the new on the escala- dure correcting the defect. Id. The tor after at its sale. Id. 1277. The evi- service instruction had been communicated dence revealed that the manufacturer had Hughes, to but Hughes applied had failed to for- the new braking system to later ward contents of the service produced instruc- Id. escalators. at 1279. This that, tion to the owner of helicopter or to Court ruled whether the claim is helicopter authorized grounded service centers. Id. in negligence liability, or strict at 610 at 457. A year A.2d after the duty changes to warn about in issued, service instruction had technology been existed where the

631 exists, said to “con- none can be at the time of sale. to warn not defective tinue.” stated: 1281. We A.2d at 1281. Lynch, 548 duty There is no the seller principles underlying 19 The faultlessly and manu- designed machine in here when read Lynch apply factured, ..., notify its such as this Walton, us to persuade of Berkebile the time of sale customers First, con adopt Section 10. decline in the state of the art concern- changes Berkebile, 10 eliminates trary to Section machine ing operation the safe of such must dem requirement plaintiff that a new, up- any and advise them install at the time of evidence of a defect onstrate improved developed safeguards dated or prevail In under strict lia order sale. time of this since the sale. Whether claims, plaintiff Pennsylvania, in bility warn, claim, essentially one of failure (1) must demonstrate that: ... sounding negligence, defective; is viewed the defect existed when defendant; and, hands of liability, it left the or strict ... makes no differ- Berkebile, caused harm. 462 defect ence. 898; Chicago A.2d Pa. at 337 Ellis Co., 545 Bridge & Iron Adoption of Section products recognize We there that a requirement eliminate the 10 would jurisdictions cases from other when it the hands defect existed left speak sell- which of manufacturer’s or defendant. “continuing duty ... Our er’s to warn.” Berkebile, Second, Sec- contrary con- review of these cases leads us to specifically injects negligence tion phrase clude that this has been used products liability. into strict principles most often to no more than describe “the provides: b to Section 10 Comment obligation imposed a manufactur- where liability of sellers governing the standard seller, er or that it has sold believing person objective: whether a reasonable subsequently non-defective provide the seller’s fact, product was, tradition- warning. learns that its de- This is the standard applied determining negligence.” ally placed fective when in the stream rejected specifically Our circumstances, say- commerce. these Berkebile, stating: concept “[W]e that there is a “continuing man stan- today that the ‘reasonable hold is, course, recognition warn” a tacit in a strict place form has no dard’ in- existed in the first Id., Pa. at liability case.” not at all obligation stance. Such in the feder- colleagues at 900. Our A2d however, synonymous, with the claim— law applying al courts plaintiff made here where —that Pennsylvania Su- observed: “The *8 product is free from all defects Court, any than oth- perhaps more preme seller, sold, nevertheless, has a nation, in the has appellate court er state changes technology and to monitor in divorcing negligence in emphatic been and, safety periodically notions of either concepts product-liability from doctrine.” otherwise, notify there- purchasers or Company, v. Ford Motor 578 Conti (E.D.Pa.1983).5 where, here, 1434 The duty F.Supp. initial of. For as no unreasonably danger- object injection of whether an rejected Court has also 5. This liability, warnings, negligence principles adequate stat and thus strict ous without defective, into negligence ing: necessarily involves or principles such reasonableness fore- as arising inadequate warn- The from seeability. ings "strict” sense as is not in the same Ellis, See also Dam 545 A.2d 912-913. liability arising to fault in from a defect due Mallis, manufacture, by Dambacher v. since a determination bacher specifically rejected standard by the Su- workplace leased into the when a valve on preme Court Berkebile is the in negli- ruptured freezer “hydraulic from gence shock,” standard advanced Section 10.6 a condition which sometimes oc- adopt We decline to Section 10.7 when liquid curs ammonia used a refrig- erant condenses accumulates ¶ 21 Order affirmed. during

freezer coil manual defrosting. ¶ HESTER, J., files a Dissenting judge, As the trial the Honorable John Opinion. Bozza, A. P.J. set forth in opinion: his 1980’s, In the mid to late manufactur- HESTER, J., dissenting: ers of industrial freezers of the type at

¶ 11 respectfully dissent. issue in began this case installing “liq- ¶ 2 dispute There is no drainer,” as to the prevented facts. uid which condensed In the Frick Company designed, liquid and from accumulating ammonia manufactured, and installed a sys- freezer hydraulic reduced the chance of plant tem Square addition, Town Foods. 1990’s, shock. early plant then acquired by Rich Prod- device known as a “scrubber” was devel- Corporation, the owner at the time of oped which had the effect of dissipating the unfortunate accident that resulted in pressure inordinate which would build the death Angela L. DeSantis. up Ms. behind the valves as a result of the DeSantis died as the result of inhaling liquid accumulation of ammonia in freez- anhydrous ammonia that had been re- er concerning coils. Information the use (holding princi- 10(b) element under Section third ples negligence place warning effectively in a strict that a can be communicat- case.) ed to and acted those to whom a warning might provided. The record does 6. We assuming also observe that adopt we did Appellant reveal that demonstrated a 10, Appellant Section effectively has failed to meet the could have been commu- Products, necessary upon by four elements nicated to and acted Rich establish a Foods, Inc., Square successor to town warn. The first element is that particularly years of the fact that the seller knows reasonably or should know passed destroyed and a fire had customer product poses that the risk substantial Deposition supra records. See of Bruce persons harm to property. The record Schaeffer. reveals no evidence that Frick was aware of The fourth element under Section 10 is that respecting refrigeration system. great sufficiently risk of harm is 10/27/98, Opinion, Trial at 5. Here, providing warning. the burden of 10(b) The second element under Section refrigeration system record reveals that the that warning might those to whom a operated 61-63; years incident. without vided can be identified and can Schaeffer, engineer 74-75. Bruce assumed to be unaware of the risk of harm. with Frick since testified the inci- The record originally reveals that Frick manu- only rupture dent in refrigeration system factured the for Town liquid refrigeration system ammonia Foods, Inc., Square years almost 30 that he was aware of in his tenure with the before the incident at issue. See Frick's An- company. Id. The further record reveals Matter, swer and New stopped at 7. Frick Schneider, Appellant’s expert, Anthony own manufacturing system during the time investigated rupture acknowledged Products, period of the late 1960’s and Rich report operator his error was the cause Appellant employer, purchased decedent’s rupture in this case and could have Feeds, plant Square from Town Inc. Trial been avoided. See Associated Webber/Smith *9 10/27/98, addition, Opinion, at 1-2. In 6/10/93, Report, Site Visit at 2-3. Company a fire at Frick headquarters de- stroyed majority company of customer disposition summary of our Deposi- records on November 1988. See judgment appropriate was because this Com- Schaeffer, 4/6/98, tion of Bruce Thus, at 50-51. recognizes monwealth warn, the record fails to reveal that Frick we need not address the issue of wheth- could have Appellant's identified customers or cur- repose er the statute of bars rent users. claim. disseminated devices was these Pennsylvania, industry and freezer COMMONWEALTH

throughout Appellant, have been aware Frick would or other publications through trade v. Rich or did not advise means. Frick of their utiliza- customers other freezer DeHART, Appellee. Mark these devices or both of tion. Had one system, freezer on Rich’s been installed Pennsylvania, Commonwealth the valve in likelihood that Appellant, have been ruptured would diminished. significantly 10/27/98, Opinion, at 1-3.

Trial Court Keister, Appellee. Ricky ¶ of the Interna- Frick is a member Pennsylvania. Superior Court of Refrigeration. Ammonia tional Institute of organization dis- In 1989 and 16, 1999. Aug. Submitted hy- publications dealing with seminated systems and how shock in ammonia draulic 19, 2000. Filed Jan. in industrial component to avoid failure by abnormal systems caused refrigeration Frick aware of or shock.

pressure dis- documents and the situations

those as the recommenda-

cussed therein as well possibility hydrau-

tions to eliminate

lic shock.

¶ caus- 4 It obvious that the condition as well as

ing the death Miss DeSantis eliminating those conditions

methods of attention from receiving considerable nothing to warn industry. did sug- or to dangerous

Rich of the condition eliminating correcting

gest means

that condition. fact situation my judgment, 5 In Frick a imposed

before us am- explosive release of

warn Rich of the installed the industrial freezer

monia from availability of

by Frick as well as of the prevent such release.

safety devices to imposition of that to warn 6 The hold- our Court’s supported Corp., Avco Pa.

ing in Walton v.

610 A.2d 454 summary judg- 7 I would reverse proceedings. further and remand for

ment